Could an armed T-X adequately defend the United States?

[Jackonicko]

The recent MITRE US Air Force Aircraft Inventory Study says:

“An armed version of the T-X trainer could perform vital homeland defense missions that don’t require more advanced (and expensive) frontline fighters. The U.S. should therefore accelerate T-X purchases and produce the trainers along with an F/T-X configuration for homeland defense missions and likely export sales.”

F/T-X Light Jet Fighter for Homeland Defense and Export

Unlike overseas contingency operations, Homeland Defense aircraft operate in a permissive environment with a robust infrastructure. Using front-line 4th and 5th generation fighters for this mission is expensive and misallocates valuable service life that would be better used to train and conduct "away game" combat operations.

The Air Force will soon begin production of the T-X, a jet trainer designed specifically to prepare aircrew for 5th generation aircraft. This same aircraft can be adapted to economically accomplish the Homeland Defense mission by outfitting it with a radar, aerial refueling, a stronger wing for weapons carriage, and armament control. This can be done for lower acquisition, operating, and support costs than using advanced frontline combat aircraft for this mission.

Purchase approximately 400 F/T-X aircraft to outfit 15 squadrons to supplement the Homeland Defense mission. F/T-X modifications and U.S. acquisition will position this aircraft for foreign military sales to nations for which the F-15, F-16, or F-35 are either too expensive or too complex to operate, or nations desiring an economical complement to their existing fighters. The F/T-X light fighter will also provide further opportunities for shared training and operations with allied and partner nations.


A MITRE Corp senior principal systems engineer, David Gerber, subsequently said (on 5 September) that: “an armed F/T-X, if adapted to carry armament, onboard sensors, and air refuelling capabilities, could adequately defend the United States while being cheaper to operate than fourth- or fifth-generation fighters.”

Isn't a degree of performance important for the air defence role? Endurance to CAP, climb performance to get to height quickly, speed to intercept.....?

[MPN11]

Is the Hawk 100/200 production line still available? ;)

By the time F/T-X has radar, AAR and armament fitted, would it get off the ground, let alone to intercept heights?

[etudiant]

Is not the 'US homeland defense' these days mostly intercepting drug smugglers flying clapped out Cessna jets?
The T-X should serve adequately in that role.

[MPN11]

Is not the 'US homeland defense' these days mostly intercepting drug smugglers flying clapped out Cessna jets?
The T-X should serve adequately in that role.
So 15 squadrons? Permanent airborne CAP along the west, south and eastern ADIZ?

[beardy]

Would they be cheaper than a wall?

[gums]

Salute!

You guys talking 'bout an air attack?

Well.maybe we don't have the amount of interceptors on 5-minute alert such as I was assigned 50 years ago, but we also didn't have a host of satellite and other assets that we have today.. And what kinda attack? A Pearl Harbor force would be toast when still a thousand miles away.

I would be more concerned with well executed attack on our electrical grid with drones. You know, like the bad guys did in Arabia over the weekend.

Times and threats have changed a lot since I had my time with the F-20 program, and that sucker was ideal for point air and ground defense.

Gums sends...

[kiwi grey]

Salute!

You guys talking 'bout an air attack?


I would be more concerned with well executed attack on our electrical grid with drones. You know, like the bad guys did in Arabia over the weekend.

Gums sends...

Indeed.
A couple of dozen drones like the "Quasef-1" (see https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/559574-yemen-2-a-3.html#post10065380 ) impacting on switching yards would knock any first world nation's grid down. The chances of the operators being caught would be very small.
For nearly as good, but much cheaper, effect you need a few guys with offroad-capable motorbikes, wire-cutters and a backpack full of simple bombs with timers. Most high-voltage transmission line towers in rural or remote areas have at most a barbed wire fence protecting them, so it would be relatively easy for a motivated individual to knock down half a dozen towers in one night.

[Mil-26Man]

Boeing seems to think so....


https://www.janes.com/article/88554/boeing-touts-light-attack-aggressor-potential-for-t-x-trainer

[Jackonicko]

If you're going to do homeland air defence then I guess you need to be able to react to a MiG from Cuba (or Venezuela), a Bear-F toddling down the seaboard, or a non-responding airliner. And you need to do it 24/7 and in all weathers.

By the time you've developed T-X enough to do that, wouldn't it have been cheaper to buy 15 Squadrons of F-16Vs - or Gripens?

And whatever you do to T-X will it have sufficient performance?

[beardy]

The original article does not mention AIR defence, just HOMELAND.

[ORAC]

Well upgrading F-16s and junking the F-15 was what the USAF suggested.

Unfortunately, as the F-35 buy shrinks and retreats into the future as did the F-22, the F-16s are the bomb trucks needed for out of area operations - and the USAF is ending up buying brand new F-15Xs for AD in the same.

Not sure if TX could do the job - or if the money exists to buy them in the first place once the above have been procured.

[Jackonicko]

Quite apart from whether it is or isn't operationally suitable, I have to ask whether the proposal is even intended to be a serious attempt to provide the USAF with a capability it requires, or whether it's effectively a disguised subsidy to Boeing to allow it to develop an aircraft for the export market?

[Jackonicko]

Is not the 'US homeland defense' these days mostly intercepting drug smugglers flying clapped out Cessna jets?
The T-X should serve adequately in that role.

I wonder whether the T-X has sufficient performance to make even that a bit problematic.

[Mil-26Man]

I wonder whether the T-X has sufficient performance to make even that a bit problematic.

Same engine as the Gripen. Why wouldn't it have the performance?

[weemonkey]

Boeing seems to think so....


https://www.janes.com/article/88554/boeing-touts-light-attack-aggressor-potential-for-t-x-trainer

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/307x164/mmmmmmmmmmmmmm_ab786429b6210bf40259d370e0763116c0e29f91.jpg
Where does "all" the fuel, weapons and operational electronics go??

[Two's in]

That "story" tells you more about how Mitre Corp studies get funded, than it does the defensive capabilities of the T-X.

[Mil-26Man]

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/307x164/mmmmmmmmmmmmmm_ab786429b6210bf40259d370e0763116c0e29f91.jpg
Where does "all" the fuel, weapons and operational electronics go??

The same place it does in any aircraft.

[weemonkey]

The same place it does in any aircraft.

but we're not talking just about "any" aircraft are we.

>>rolleyes<<

[Mil-26Man]

but we're not talking just about "any" aircraft are we.

>>rolleyes<<

>>facepalms and thinks, 'what a d1ck'<<

How is it different from any other advanced trainer that has been developed into a light fighter/attack platform - M-346, Yak-130, etc etc? Where did all the fuel, weapons and operational electronics for those aircraft go?

[racedo]

Indeed.
A couple of dozen drones like the "Quasef-1" (see https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/559574-yemen-2-a-3.html#post10065380 ) impacting on switching yards would knock any first world nation's grid down. The chances of the operators being caught would be very small.
For nearly as good, but much cheaper, effect you need a few guys with offroad-capable motorbikes, wire-cutters and a backpack full of simple bombs with timers. Most high-voltage transmission line towers in rural or remote areas have at most a barbed wire fence protecting them, so it would be relatively easy for a motivated individual to knock down half a dozen towers in one night.

Try over a month and why bother letting people know you visited before a Halloween spectacular.

Like having a million $$$ Ferrari which does 0-60 in 3,2 seconds etc etc, a banana in the exhaust makes your million $$$ Ferrari go fom 0-0 in 3.2 seconds. New technology is great but the old ways to stop it work well.

[racedo]

The recent MITRE US Air Force Aircraft Inventory Study says:



A MITRE Corp senior principal systems engineer, David Gerber, subsequently said (on 5 September) that: “an armed F/T-X, if adapted to carry armament, onboard sensors, and air refuelling capabilities, could adequately defend the United States while being cheaper to operate than fourth- or fifth-generation fighters.”

Isn't a degree of performance important for the air defence role? Endurance to CAP, climb performance to get to height quickly, speed to intercept.....?

It is not an unrealistic question BUT issue would be Air National Guard units want to be flying same equipment as USAF/USN and no Senator will allow his home state to have what is percieved lesser equipment than USAF etc.

In addition as Air NG units are frequently deployed overseas then you lose the ability of them to use same aircraft as full timers.

It has no chance as Politics come first.

[charliegolf]

Air National Guard units want to be flying same equipment as USAF/USN and no Senator will allow his home state to have what is percieved lesser equipment than USAF etc.



Unless built in his home state maybe?

CG

[Bob Viking]

May I please attempt to inject some common sense into this discussion?

The suggestion of using T-X for home defence is somewhat akin to the decades old plan of using Hawk T1s with AIM-9 for UKAD.

Yes, there is a capability and yes the T-X could strap on some missiles and shoot them at people in extremis.

The proposed T-X design is a great jet and has great performance. For a trainer.

If the USA is ever in a position where it is relying on Squadrons of T-X’s for Homeland defence then yes it may prove useful. There would have to have been a few thousand combat losses of F22s, F35s, F16s, F15s and F18s before that ever became reality though.

Whilst the T-X could almost certainly beat some old jets (ie MiG 15/17 maybe even 21) it would quickly find itself embarrassed in a fight against any actual fighter (ie the Flanker series).

With all this said, please remember the specification for T-X was for avionics that emulate modern frontline capability. That does not mean it will, or could, ever have an actual Radar.

My final point is that I have noticed a recent trend for individuals with an obvious dearth of knowledge to start posting on military topics about which they clearly have no actual credentials. Experience of PlayStation or a subscription to Airforces Monthly does not make you an expert.

Now please, use your extensive knowledge and experience to shoot me down.

BV

[racedo]

Unless built in his home state maybe?

CG

Senator standing up in Congress................ "I am sure members would like to Thank Air NG members from the Great State of X after their succesful deployment in Operation X overseas serving US National Security" sounds better than "I am sure members would like to Thank Air NG members from the Great State of X who flew around leeping people safe at home".

Senator who allows his Air NG to have equipment percieved as less than USAF has will be seeking a new job come election time.

[Mil-26Man]

With all this said, please remember the specification for T-X was for avionics that emulate modern frontline capability. That does not mean it will, or could, ever have an actual Radar.

Same could be said for the M-346, before the Israelis decided to put a radar in their 'trainer' aircraft and use them operationally. Also, as the Jane's story states, the plumbing and cooling for such operational equipment is already in place in the T-X.

[weemonkey]

>>facepalms and thinks, 'what a d1ck'<<

How is it different from any other advanced trainer that has been developed into a light fighter/attack platform - M-346, Yak-130, etc etc? Where did all the fuel, weapons and operational electronics for those aircraft go?


I bow to your superior knowledge of appendices ..



noun
plural noun: appendices

1.
ANATOMY
a tube-shaped sac attached to and opening into the lower end of the large intestine the appendix is small and has no known function....

[Bob Viking]

Since your knowledge of the aviation media is clearly much better than mine can you please answer me some questions?

Has the M346 actually flown with a Radar yet or is it a ‘capability’?

Have Israel actually upgraded their jets to have a radar capability?

What ‘operational’ sorties have Israel employed their M346’s on?

Where in your Jane’s article does it specifically say the Boeing/Saab jet will have a radar? I saw bits about hard points but nothing specifically about a radar. I’m not saying it can’t be done but...

Finally let me lay this out there. When I did DACT against an M346 (in real life) my thoughts were thus. It is a beautiful jet with great performance for a training jet. However, we were on our way back to base as a formation and I still had half my fuel left. He was bingo. He was in a completely clean configuration. The pilots told me that when drop tanks are fitted they are limited to 4g.

So, the M346 looks good and performs adequately in its role (with no external stores fitted). Would I recommend it as a fighter? Bearing in mind that would entail external hard points and weapons and at least some external fuel tanks. Hell no.

But it I am basing that on having worked alongside it. Not on what I have read. Your literature may suggest otherwise.

BV

[downsizer]

Since your knowledge of the aviation media is clearly much better than mine can you please answer me some questions?

Has the M346 actually flown with a Radar yet or is it a ‘capability’?

Have Israel actually upgraded their jets to have a radar capability?

What ‘operational’ sorties have Israel employed their M346’s on?

Where in your Jane’s article does it specifically say the Boeing/Saab jet will have a radar? I saw bits about hard points but nothing specifically about a radar. I’m not saying it can’t be done but...

Finally let me lay this out there. When I did DACT against an M346 (in real life) my thoughts were thus. It is a beautiful jet with great performance for a training jet. However, we were on our way back to base as a formation and I still had half my fuel left. He was bingo. He was in a completely clean configuration. The pilots told me that when drop tanks are fitted they are limited to 4g.

So, the M346 looks good and performs adequately in its role (with no external stores fitted). Would I recommend it as a fighter? Bearing in mind that would entail external hard points and weapons and at least some external fuel tanks. Hell no.

But it I am basing that on having worked alongside it. Not on what I have read. Your literature may suggest otherwise.

BV

Dude....

Facts and knowledge have no place in the mil aviation history forum. Unless you can post dits from 30 years ago about equipment we no longer have, please desist! ;)

[Mil-26Man]

Since your knowledge of the aviation media is clearly much better than mine can you please answer me some questions?

Has the M346 actually flown with a Radar yet or is it a ‘capability’?

Have Israel actually upgraded their jets to have a radar capability?

What ‘operational’ sorties have Israel employed their M346’s on?

Where in your Jane’s article does it specifically say the Boeing/Saab jet will have a radar? I saw bits about hard points but nothing specifically about a radar. I’m not saying it can’t be done but...

Finally let me lay this out there. When I did DACT against an M346 (in real life) my thoughts were thus. It is a beautiful jet with great performance for a training jet. However, we were on our way back to base as a formation and I still had half my fuel left. He was bingo. He was in a completely clean configuration. The pilots told me that when drop tanks are fitted they are limited to 4g.

So, the M346 looks good and performs adequately in its role (with no external stores fitted). Would I recommend it as a fighter? Bearing in mind that would entail external hard points and weapons and at least some external fuel tanks. Hell no.

But it I am basing that on having worked alongside it. Not on what I have read. Your literature may suggest otherwise.

BV


Not doubting your flying experience BV, and as you seem to be hung-up on 'experience' over your last few posts I'd suggest I've had more direct experience of the TX programme than most on this forum. Who knows, perhaps even more than your esteemed self.

As you know (or you wouldn't have asked the questions), Israel has not yet done any of those things...yet. But, it has assessed the options and declared it is going to go down that road.

Maybe (probably) the USAF won't decide to do the same for the TX for the reasons given here and elsewhere. My point was that, according to stories linked in this thread (and from what i know myself through direct access to the engineers, programme managers and aircraft over the last couple of years) the option to do so is there.

[Mil-26Man]

I bow to your superior knowledge of appendices ..



noun
plural noun: appendices

1.
ANATOMY
a tube-shaped sac attached to and opening into the lower end of the large intestine the appendix is small and has no known function....



Yeah, it didn't need explaining thanks.

[Jackonicko]

Same engine as the Gripen. Why wouldn't it have the performance?

Same engine, but not the same fuel fraction, so I'd be a bit surprised if it can use A/B for long......

Also the fineness ratio etc. doesn't look as optimised for high speed.

[Jackonicko]

When I did DACT against an M346 (in real life)

What were you ger-fluging Bob?

[weemonkey]

M346 fuel fraction, they could always wet the fin!

"The Return of the Fin"
"The Fin Flys again"
"Fin Full"

etc,etc,etc..

[Bob Viking]

This is me we’re talking about. What do you think I was flying?!

Mil 26.

I know it may appear I am being argumentative but what I am trying to illustrate is that there is a huge difference between a stated possible capability and something actually being fielded in real life.

Each of the jets we are discussing here has lots of future potential and would make a great light strike attack jet for an impoverished nation.

I still do not believe it would ever be a sensible choice for US home defence in anything except an all-out war of national survival. If the USA is down to using its training aircraft for such a task then I think we will probably all be dead by then anyway.

It is more than possible that you have more knowledge and experience of the T-X programme than myself. I am merely trying to bring an operators perspective to the conversation.

BV

PS. Downsizer, you are quite correct. I shall desist forthwith.

[Lonewolf_50]

Some years ago, when I had a small finger in the T-6 Texan II / JPATS program, we learned that the Greeks were going to purchase an armed option. (Nothing fancy, no radar, mostly bombs, rockets and guns IIRC). The NTA is what that is apparently called now.
And ... as I do a little light digging into Google (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_T-6_Texan_II)... I discover that there is more to be had. (Even though a push to do BFM / ACM training in the T-6A for NFOs and NAVs was floated and rejected due to energy management problems ... anyway, that's what the Navy found back then)
T-6B Texan II Upgraded version of the T-6A with a digital glass cockpit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_cockpit) that includes a Head-Up Display (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-Up_Display) (HUD), six multi-function displays (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-function_display) (MFD) and Hands on Throttle And Stick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOTAS) (HOTAS), used at Naval Air Station Whiting Field (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Air_Station_Whiting_Field), Naval Air Station Corpus Christi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Air_Station_Corpus_Christi), and United States Naval Test Pilot School (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Naval_Test_Pilot_School).
Leading to:
AT-6B Wolverine Armed version of the T-6B for primary weapons training or light attack roles. It has the same digital cockpit, but upgraded to include datalink and integrated electro-optical sensors along with several weapons configurations. Engine power is increased to 1,600 shp (1193 kW) with the Pratt & Whitney Canada (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_Canada) PT6 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PT6)-68D engine, and the structure is reinforced. Cheaper than T-X. :E (Yeah, I know, it's not as fast, and a radar in the nose is unlikely fit. )

To answer the exam question:
> Could an armed T-X adequately defend the United States?

An armed T-X means "one" so the answer is no. A few hundred? Could contribute. Depends on what rader, EW, and other assets are available as part of the overall effort.

[racedo]

To answer the exam question:
> Could an armed T-X adequately defend the United States?

An armed T-X means "one" so the answer is no. A few hundred? Could contribute. Depends on what rader, EW, and other assets are available as part of the overall effort.

Biggest question is "What exactly are you going to defend against ?"

[Lonewolf_50]

Biggest question is "What exactly are you going to defend against ?" Yeah, what's the mission profile?

[dagenham]

BV all very well made points

is this not a teensy bit like the early seventies all over again..... big ( well largish ) but much more expensive jet, need an affordable option, can keep up grading F-x as they are getting well and truly shagged out after a medium sized war.

Sounds like a pitch for a new F16 / 18 comp - has any one seen Pierre lately ? Gums your rumour mill working?

[racedo]

Sounds like a pitch for a new F16 / 18 comp - has any one seen Pierre lately ? Gums your rumour mill working?

So US taxpayer is going to get screwed again by MIC, for a aircraft not required, so some millionaires can get even richer.

[West Coast]

Senator standing up in Congress................ "I am sure members would like to Thank Air NG members from the Great State of X after their succesful deployment in Operation X overseas serving US National Security" sounds better than "I am sure members would like to Thank Air NG members from the Great State of X who flew around leeping people safe at home".

Senator who allows his Air NG to have equipment percieved as less than USAF has will be seeking a new job come election time.


Oh come off of it. There is plenty of change coming to a guard unit near you. Well, maybe not you. There are many guard units that have swapped into older airframes, differing missions, or that still have older block (tranche if you prefer) aircraft or who are now trash haulers or connex warriors. If the senators had as much clout as you think, we never would have had numerous rounds of BRAC closures.

I’m starting to warm up to you, but you’re out of your element here.

[West Coast]

Better have a boatload of these spread out. It’s a marginally Mach aircraft by a search on its characteristics. It’ll take all of its range and speed to conduct a tail chase intercept on a 8:20 departure to Kansas City that’s gone NORDO.

[Jackonicko]

This is me we’re talking about. What do you think I was flying?!

Jag or 'Awk.....

[gums]

Salute!

Best chance U.S. had for a national air defense-only plane was the F-20, and Northrop's last ditch maneuver was to get USAF Air Guard equipped with that rascal in order to get a few hundred sold.

The countries that could have used it wanted the big dogs for their President's birthday parade.

I was one of the three pilot experts on Northrop's legal team in 1985 for their suit vs MacAir on propietary stuff on the F-18 and F-20. So I had many sim hours in a cosmic sim there, plus some time in the F-18 sim at St Louis. The other two were a F-18 OT&E guy and Chuck Yeager.

Gums sends....

[A_Van]

Etudiant is right.
A threat model should be defined first in detail. "Homeland Defense" sounds a bit vague. Drug smugglers, self-made drones, what else?

[weemonkey]

Could it tail chase one of those Gulfstream thingies down at 50k, because that's what the cartels will use to avoid interception, unless roe says shoot before ID...that's REALLY high up and they MOTOR...I have actually seen one (confirmed by fr) from the ground here in PERTHSHIRE tiny, tiny dot on a thin, thin contrail....

[etudiant]

Could it tail chase one of those Gulfstream thingies down at 50k, because that's what the cartels will use to avoid interception, unless roe says shoot before ID...that's REALLY high up and they MOTOR...I have actually seen one (confirmed by fr) from the ground here in PERTHSHIRE tiny, tiny dot on a thin, thin contrail....

Gulfstreams are expensive and need decent runways, so they are easier to intercept on the ground. It is much harder to swat midges than flies.
Imho, the US drug problem reflects both high volume imports of high priced drugs by airplane as well as mass volume of cheap drugs by boat. Do note this excludes the home grown Purdue Oxycontin delivery system.
All is probably fixable in an enhanced surveillance state, but it is less clear whether the public is on board for that.