Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

LM to offer T-50A for USAF's T-X requirement...

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

LM to offer T-50A for USAF's T-X requirement...

Old 18th Feb 2016, 09:32
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 434
Received 7 Likes on 2 Posts
F-35 Sustained Turn Specs

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rc...55877749803823
Tarnished is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2016, 11:19
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 5,335
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Tarnished,

I'm not sure if this was the intention, but that link redirects to a forum discussion about the infamous F-16 vs F-35 BFM fallacy. There's some quite good thinking going on there, but as always folks are trying to reverse engineer the F-35s performance tables from those of the F-16 and 18.

I think it's probably fair to say that we know the F-35 g-limits and we've seen the reduced sustained g figures and we are not talking anything particularly dazzling. It wold not be difficult to find a trainer that would match that performance. The new trainer won't just be there as a lead in to F-35 and I would expect the higher g requirements to come from other, higher performing platforms.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2016, 11:48
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I agree with CM. The F-35's sustained G capability is not sterling and I'm confident that the trainer's sustained G requirement exceeds the F-35's capability. But the trainer will also be used as a lead in to F-22 and other jets with higher aeroperformance than the F-35. However, the trainer also needs to be able to simulate the functionality of the F-35's cockpit and avionics in order to teach those cockpit and systems management skills. So its an aggressively complex program.

And if the cockpit and systems are done properly, the intent is not only to use the trainer to teach those skills to lead-in pilots, but to offload training sorties from the actual aircraft and use the trainer instead of the actual aircraft to keep those skills polished in current pilots. It'll be interesting to see if they are successful in making that happen. Especially since the F-35 software and systems will (supposedly) be constantly upgraded. How will they make sure the trainer software/systems keep up with the evolving aircraft it's supposed to represent?
KenV is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2016, 11:59
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 5,335
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
My thoughts exactly, Ken about sustained g, F-22 and higher performance legacy (and future?) aircraft.

I was involved in a study about off loading front line training to simpler, less expensive aircraft. A couple of interesting things came out of it - apart from the problems of replicating up to date front line software, displays and (in some cases) simulating sensors and systems.

First was a risk of negative training where the trainer did not exactly match the actual aircraft, mainly in terms of handling or performance. Whilst this was found to be less of a problem for more experienced aircrew, there was a risk of regression for newer pilots.

The other thing was from an engineering standpoint, whereby the entire logistics and maintenance empire became geared up (and established) for a lower flying rate, which was then overstretched to support the increased flying rate required for excercises and ops where the trainer could no longer substitute for the real thing.

When you need your trainer to emulate more than one type, of course, the complexity of the task becomes huge.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2016, 14:19
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 434
Received 7 Likes on 2 Posts
Courtney, You should know me better than that!. Nothing clever or deep in my thinking or posting. Only trying to help answer the question asked in the previous post by KiloB, googled and chose the neatest looking summary table. Any connection with F-16 vs F-35 thread purely accidental.

Now, about the supersonic requirements for a trainer.......

T
Tarnished is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2016, 16:09
  #26 (permalink)  
TLB
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Raytheon Announces Bid for USAF T-X Trainer Competition

Raytheon Announces Bid for USAF T-X Trainer Competition
By Lara Seligman, Defense News
7:39 p.m. EST February 22, 2016

WASHINGTON — Raytheon on Monday officially announced it is teaming with Italian aerospace company Finmeccanica and CAE to offer the T-100 for the US Air Force T-X advanced trainer competition, a move first reported by Defense News last week.

Raytheon, one of the world’s leading companies for training and avionics, will be the prime contractor on the T-100 training solution, while Finmeccanica will provide the foundational aircraft platform, Alenia Aermacchi’s M-346, company officials said during the rollout event. CAE will design and manufacture simulation equipment, training systems and courseware for the T-100, and Honeywell Aerospace will provide twin F124 turbofan engines to power the aircraft.

“Raytheon is leading this effort because our pilots deserve a comprehensive training solution that provides the foundation for their combat readiness,” said Rick Yuse, president of Raytheon’s space and airborne systems. “They must be prepared to take full advantage of the advanced capabilities of fourth- and fifth-generation fighters. Our integrated T-100 training solution will do just that.”

If selected, the T-100 will be built, tested and fielded in the United States, Yuse stressed. Raytheon has not yet chosen a facility for the project, but is considering every option, including building a new site from scratch, said Roy Azevedo, company vice president of secured sensor solutions for space and airborne systems.

The winner of the T-X competition will provide the Air Force with 350 new aircraft to replace the aging T-38 fleet that currently trains the service’s pilots. But T-X is not just about a new airframe, Raytheon officials emphasized during the briefing. A crucial piece of the future training system will be the ground-based training a pilot receives before actually sitting in the cockpit, they said.

Raytheon looks at the T-X as a “total training solution,” Azevedo stressed. The company is uniquely suited to build T-X because of its word-class training, avionics and manufacturing capabilities, he argued.

“The airplane is just the beginning,” Azevedo said. “We are going to be offering a solution that goes from the classroom to the simulators to the aircraft; that includes live virtual construction to train the pilots and provide a comprehensive system that allows these pilots to get their wings and become combat ready.”


Another advantage is that the T-100 offering is low-risk and affordable because the aircraft is already operational, Raytheon and Finmeccanica officials stressed during the briefing. The M-346, the basis for the T-100, is currently training pilots around the world with the Israeli, Italian, Polish and Singapore air forces.

“This partnership aims to provide the US Air Force with the most advanced, effective and affordable solution for the next-generation military pilot training requirement,” said Filippo Bagnato, managing director of Finmeccanica Aircraft Division.

In joining the Finmeccanica and CAE team, Raytheon is replacing General Dynamics in the role of prime contractor. GD dropped off the program in March; since then, Finmeccanica and CAE have been without a prime for the offering.

Raytheon is entering a crowded field. In addition to the T-100 team, competitors include 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; the Lockheed Martin-Korea Aerospace Industries T-50A; and a design from Textron AirLand, which may be loosely based on its Scorpion jet.

While the Boeing and Northrop teams have decided to move forward with clean-sheet designs, Raytheon believes using an existing airframe is a safer, more affordable option for the Air Force.

“I would say having a proven solution doing the job the Air Force needs today — I like our position a lot better than starting from a clean sheet of paper,” said Jim Hvizd, Raytheon vice president of business development for space and airborne systems.

Nabbing T-X will provide the winning company not only a contract for 350 aircraft, but also an inside track to any number of international customers who buy the F-35 around the globe. T-X, along with its advanced ground-based training system, is crucial to the Air Force's plan to train a new generation of pilots to transition from legacy fighter jets to the F-35 in future decades.

Industry expects the Air Force to release a request for proposals for T-X later this year, with a contract award in 2017. Initial operating capability is expected in 2024.
TLB is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2016, 16:57
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,577
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Back to a four-horse race, the winner being whoever meets (not exceeds) the requirements at lowest life-cycle cost with acceptable risk.

That is, "whoever other than LockMart" for industrial-base reasons, and also because the T-50 is damn nearly the size of an F-16B.

The M346 is a nice solid airplane. It has an operational and maturing LVC capability built-in (from Elbit) which Raytheon appears to be throwing away in favor of a domestic solution. Industrial base? Yep, just what the customer's looking for, a new military airplane production organization.

NorthGrum doubtless has an interesting design, but the customer wants it to focus on LRSB (and other spookier things).

If you want a low-LCC new airplane, nobody does that like Saab. And Boeing's been working very, very hard on the ground-based bit of TX for a few years, grounded on very extensive experience in selling training systems to customers (for helos, particularly). And it's certainly the spread-the-work winner.

Boeing's deal to lose, I think.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2016, 17:50
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 5,335
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Tarnished
Courtney, You should know me better than that!. Nothing clever or deep in my thinking or posting. Only trying to help answer the question asked in the previous post by KiloB, googled and chose the neatest looking summary table. Any connection with F-16 vs F-35 thread purely accidental.
Sorry, buddy, didn't intend to imply anything, just pointing out where the link redirects to and was wondering if my simple brain had missed something.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2016, 17:51
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In a van down by the river
Posts: 706
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
My ill-informed 2 cents.

LM has the F-35 so the likelihood of them getting the contract is minimal as the government wants to maintain at least 2 major combat aircraft manufacturers, hence their half-hearted effort with the T-50A and minimal investment. The M-346 (T-100) would normally be a sure thing for Raytheon, except for the rather awkward fact that it's really a Russian aircraft in the form of the Yak-130 and we would have to sit and listen to the Russkies crowing about the USAF flying a "Russian" combat aircraft from here to eternity - that's never, ever going to happen.

The Hawk doesn't have the thrust and there's only so many times you can recycle the design no matter how much you like the basic aircraft, the Scorpion simply doesn't have the performance either, and what that leaves you with I'm not sure, but for me I would favor the T-50A with an upgraded engine probably the F414 - that would be a useful little jet, but someone else would have to make it.

Not wishing to be controversial here, just the way I see it.
Fonsini is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2016, 19:11
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 5,335
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Fons, I agree with all of that. And governments have had worse reasons for not awarding contracts. As for recycling the Hawk, see my post

http://www.pprune.org/9271609-post6.html
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2016, 19:36
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,577
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
The big size-drivers for TX are a cockpit that can accommodate the 95th-percentile population, and a requirement to perform a specific maneuver, designed to evaluate and improve the student pilot’s performance at high g, in which 6.5 g or more is sustained through a 140-deg. turn.

The RFI states that the maneuver must start at or above 15,000 feet and end it no lower than 13,000 feet, while the aircraft loses no more than 10 per cent of its initial speed. The maneuver has to begin with at least 80% internal fuel, so that it can be performed at any time during a training sortie.

I believe, also, that the USAF wants the option to include a real radar for use when the aircraft is emulating threats, rather than a software-emulated radar that the Elbit system uses.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2016, 21:23
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In a van down by the river
Posts: 706
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Courtney - that T-45 photo did make me chuckle.
Fonsini is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2016, 21:41
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Could this be another Red Bird to cover a bloated and expensive program?

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...20bird&f=false
Ivan Rogov is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2016, 04:49
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: the far south
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 32 Likes on 12 Posts
Can someone enlighten me about the need for sustained maneuvering from a trainer?

The RFI states that the maneuver must start at or above 15,000 feet and end it no lower than 13,000 feet, while the aircraft loses no more than 10 per cent of its initial speed. The maneuver has to begin with at least 80% internal fuel, so that it can be performed at any time during a training sortie.


Why does it matter to a students training what energy state the aircraft has once completing the maneuver?
typerated is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2016, 20:29
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why does it matter to a students training what energy state the aircraft has once completing the maneuver?
It doesn't matter if it's just a single bird maneuver. It matters a lot if there are multiple birds in the air in a training fur ball. USAF wants to use the trainer to train pilots in high energy many-vs-many combat maneuvering. And in high energy defensive maneuvering. All that takes actual high performance, not make believe performance. And in this case, performance quite a bit beyond what the F-35 can do.
KenV is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2016, 20:38
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
but for me I would favor the T-50A with an upgraded engine probably the F414
How about the clean sheet designs? Are they out of the question? And BTW, one of the "clean sheet designs" is from SAAB who has a mature small(ish) fighter equipped with the F414. I'm confident it could be the basis of a very nifty high performance trainer. And it already has an EASA radar, so if USAF wants a real radar and not a simulated one in some of their trainers, SAAB already has the ability to provide it. And the F414 already has a very well laid out growth path in the Super Hornet, with Boeing offering a version with something like 20% more thrust. So SAAB may be on to something.
KenV is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2016, 08:10
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: the far south
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 32 Likes on 12 Posts
Thanks Ken,

How many sorties would be flown with this requirement during initial training?

Or is this more aimed at continuation training for F-22/ F-35 pilots would you think?

Cheers

TR
typerated is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2016, 13:38
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,577
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
KenV is not quite correct.

Note that the g requirement is not "sustained" in the normal US-standard sense in that height and speed may bleed off. So it's not about air-combat training but about assessing the student's response to elevated g (and rapid onset, since the maneuver starts in straight and level flight).

http://www.avia-it.com/act/areariser...ntensifies.pdf

Because you really don't want to find out that Lt Scroggins can't do a g-straining maneuver worth a damn when he's solo in a $150m jet.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2016, 13:42
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
LM have the F-35, Northrop the bomber and Boeing the tanker...............

Raytheon look like a good bet......
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2016, 15:59
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Note that the g requirement is not "sustained" in the normal US-standard sense in that height and speed may bleed off. So it's not about air-combat training but about assessing the student's response to elevated g (and rapid onset, since the maneuver starts in straight and level flight).
Two comments:

1. Assessing student reaction to high G, including rapid onset high G, can be done in a centrifuge much more cheaply and much much more safely. USAF routinely does so to 9 G (not just 6.5 G) today, and not just for its students, but during recurrent pilot training.

2. Assessing student reaction to high G does not require maneuver entry at 15,000 ft, nor 80% fuel state. Reportedly, it was the 15,000 ft requirement that killed the Hawk. Nor does it require exiting the maneuver at 12,000 ft, nor losing only a few knots airspeed. You can pull lots of G for quite some time in basically every existing jet trainer if you're willing to lose energy (i.e. lose altitude and/or airspeed) doing so. That was pointed out by the Hawker Hunter pilots several posts back. You only need to preserve energy if you want to be able to fight after pulling lots of G.

How many sorties would be flown with this requirement during initial training? Or is this more aimed at continuation training for F-22/ F-35 pilots would you think?
"Initial" training sorties? Not too many I would think. Such high load maneuvers will probably be limited to student pilots who have progressed to the point that they have been selected for high performance jets like F-22, F-15, (and maybe to a lesser extent F-35) to prepare them for those jets and the type of flying they will do in those jets.

This is a complicated question as it relates to both the training program/schedule and to the service life of the jet. Designing and building an aircraft for such high sustained loads for a significant per centage of its service life will result in a pretty heavy jet, so I'd guess that the requirement is for not too many of such maneuvers over its service life. On the other hand, all composite aerostructures are much less prone to fatigue than traditional metal aerostructures, so that will certainly make a difference. (The Hawk has a metal wing and it was a contender until recently. I don't know what the M346 wing is made of.) On the other other hand USAF may not yet have provided a load spectrum for the aircraft over its full service life. It might be that if the load spectrum includes many such maneuvers over its service life, existing aircraft with metal wings will either require weight increasing beef up, or redesign using composites. I don't know.

While there is lots of talk of moving some recurrent training in combat jets to a trainer, there are no solid plans for that as yet. But some of the requirements of the trainer were included with that in mind. I'd guess that once the aircraft is built and serving and its full capabilities are understood (including its systems capabilities), solid plans to offload recurrent training from fighters onto a trainer will be developed. One step at a time if you will. But some of the attributes for such a trainer (like its kinematic performance and open architecture systems) must be designed in at the outset. Hence such requirements so early in the program.

Last edited by KenV; 25th Feb 2016 at 17:26.
KenV is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.