LM to offer T-50A for USAF's T-X requirement...
But LO why would they care about the end state energy if it was just about the students capacity to pull G.
You can have a much cheaper, lower performance platform to just pull G - although you end up using lots of sky to maintain it for a while.
Ken's answer makes perfect sense
You can have a much cheaper, lower performance platform to just pull G - although you end up using lots of sky to maintain it for a while.
Ken's answer makes perfect sense
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LM have the F-35, Northrop the bomber and Boeing the tanker...............
@Kenv
I would agree that the KC-46 award doesn't seem to add to the industrial base for tactical aircraft design, but a fair amount of what's going into the KC-46 is coming via Boeing Defense and certainly supports its continued existence. I also expect that, as with the C-135, there will be many variations/ modifications of the KC-46 over the years to come to provide for additional missions unrelated to AR.
All of which, whether you agree or not, has little to do with the choice for T-X.
Too bad so many candidates just don't have that dashing beauty of the T-38.
I would agree that the KC-46 award doesn't seem to add to the industrial base for tactical aircraft design, but a fair amount of what's going into the KC-46 is coming via Boeing Defense and certainly supports its continued existence. I also expect that, as with the C-135, there will be many variations/ modifications of the KC-46 over the years to come to provide for additional missions unrelated to AR.
All of which, whether you agree or not, has little to do with the choice for T-X.
Too bad so many candidates just don't have that dashing beauty of the T-38.
You can read into the RFI what you will, but the clarification issued on 7/10 says that the sustained g is "for purposes of APT requirements".
I believe that the USAF wants the student to experience, in a real aircraft, rapid onset (in the RFI) followed by sustained g through 140 deg. of a 180 deg. turn. The 10 per cent limit on speed loss, I would guess, is to ensure that the aircraft is more or less in a steady state (like a fighter) rather than bleeding speed like a stuck pig. Entry and exit altitudes may be safety considerations.
So IMHO the idea is to deliver the fighter g experience without the thrust and expense required to do it in level flight at 20kft.
I believe that the USAF wants the student to experience, in a real aircraft, rapid onset (in the RFI) followed by sustained g through 140 deg. of a 180 deg. turn. The 10 per cent limit on speed loss, I would guess, is to ensure that the aircraft is more or less in a steady state (like a fighter) rather than bleeding speed like a stuck pig. Entry and exit altitudes may be safety considerations.
So IMHO the idea is to deliver the fighter g experience without the thrust and expense required to do it in level flight at 20kft.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would agree that the KC-46 award doesn't seem to add to the industrial base for tactical aircraft design, but a fair amount of what's going into the KC-46 is coming via Boeing Defense and certainly supports its continued existence.