LM to offer T-50A for USAF's T-X requirement...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LM to offer T-50A for USAF's T-X requirement...
Ungainly looking bugger, ain't it?
Lockheed Martin Nixes Clean-Sheet T-X Design, Will Offer T-50A
-RP
Lockheed Martin Nixes Clean-Sheet T-X Design, Will Offer T-50A
-RP
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like an amalgamation of designs (F-16, Alpha Jet etc). Not sure if I like the look.
Hopefully the important bit - forgiving handling, performance, missions systems that prepare modern pilots for 4/5th Gen cockpits etc - is good. That's vital.
Hopefully the important bit - forgiving handling, performance, missions systems that prepare modern pilots for 4/5th Gen cockpits etc - is good. That's vital.
They confidently state that an aircraft that they don't wish to bother designing, won't be any better than the aircraft they already have? Impressive!
It looks a little last-minute.com rush-job by LM. Grab a rather sleek looking KAI T-50 and stuff all the new capabilities in an ungainly hump on its back and retire for coffee and donuts.
A question here. Will there be political pressure to issue the next contract to a someone other than LM? I can imagine a desire to spread the defence budget around a bit.
KenV, any insight into this?
MSOCS, you're right, but you missed out a bit of A-4 in the T-50A.
P.S. I was going to remark that LM should be putting all their effort into fixing the wonder jet rather than doodling new sketches, but decided not to. Maybe they need to dream up three versions, one with folding wings and more weight for the Navy and a jumping bean version for the Marines - never been done before so I might sell them my idea.
KenV, any insight into this?
MSOCS, you're right, but you missed out a bit of A-4 in the T-50A.
P.S. I was going to remark that LM should be putting all their effort into fixing the wonder jet rather than doodling new sketches, but decided not to. Maybe they need to dream up three versions, one with folding wings and more weight for the Navy and a jumping bean version for the Marines - never been done before so I might sell them my idea.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 16th Feb 2016 at 11:37.
BAeS have stated that they intend to submit a clean-sheet design to meet the TX requirement. CEO, Mike Turner, stated, "To meet the exacting requirements we have decided to expand our thinking environment, eliminate legacy-based conceptual restraint and develop a revolutionary new design."
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will there be political pressure to issue the next contract to a someone other than LM? I can imagine a desire to spread the defence budget around a bit. KenV, any insight into this?
Northrup Grumman was tied in with Bae to offer a modified Hawk, but they pivoted to a clean sheet design due to concerns with the sustained G turn requirement. But neither Northrup nor Grumman have designed or built a tactical jet in decades, so it'll be interesting to see what they come up with, both in terms of design as well as the support package. And L-3 being a member of this team means they have a team member with a long history of providing military simulators (Link). The simulator training package is a very critical part of the overall proposal.
General Dynamics was tied in with Alenia to offer the T-100 based on the M-346, but they pulled out for the same sustained G reason. I've heard no announcements of GD starting over with a clean sheet design. Alenia is looking for another prime to team with. So far no takers. And they don't seem to have tied in with a proven provider of simulator training, a very important piece to be missing.
Saab is using their Gripen experience to come up with a clean sheet design, with Boeing as the prime. Saab is convinced they have a winning design, both in terms of performance and cost. But they're keeping their design under wraps, no public releases yet. I've seen early design sketches which look rather Gripenish, but that has reportedly changed as USAF released their requirements. I haven't seen the new stuff. And Boeing owns Flight Safety, so this team also has a proven contractor that provides military simulators. So with two contractors who have current tactical jet design, assembly and support experience, and extensive military simulator training experience, this team may be the one to beat. Assuming they win, I'll probably be retired from Boeing before this program goes into low rate production, never mind full rate production.
Textron thinks they can offer a modified Scorpion, but I personally don't see how that aircraft can hope to meet the sustained G requirement as well as all that 5th Gen cockpit stuff. And I don't see them having much military simulator training experience. They don't look like a serious contender to me.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if SAAB is still in the wings?
Boeing And Saab To Propose Gripen For T-X | Defense content from Aviation Week
Boeing and Saab will announce “in weeks rather than months” that they will team up to offer the JAS 39 Gripen for the U.S. Air Force’s T-X future trainer requirement, according to sources familiar with the deal. Saab is apparently confident that the two companies will be able to undercut the cost of the closest rival contender, the Lockheed Martin/Korea Aerospace Industries T-50.
Other details of the deal are being closely held. The T-X program, aimed at acquiring some 350 trainers to replace the Northrop Grumman T-38, has been on hold due to budget cuts but is expected to restart in the 2015 budget.
Boeing And Saab To Propose Gripen For T-X | Defense content from Aviation Week
Boeing and Saab will announce “in weeks rather than months” that they will team up to offer the JAS 39 Gripen for the U.S. Air Force’s T-X future trainer requirement, according to sources familiar with the deal. Saab is apparently confident that the two companies will be able to undercut the cost of the closest rival contender, the Lockheed Martin/Korea Aerospace Industries T-50.
Other details of the deal are being closely held. The T-X program, aimed at acquiring some 350 trainers to replace the Northrop Grumman T-38, has been on hold due to budget cuts but is expected to restart in the 2015 budget.
Courtney, the T-45C (which was the glass cockpit mod) is a good enough jet trainer ... but it's had a few bugs over the years. (Steering being one of them, IIRC nose wheel steering, I think that finally got resolved in the 00's. )
If the Navy is going to send Marines and Navy pilots to the F-35B from the T-45C, what is it about the "T-X" that is so compelling? Granted, the USN has had an eye on the T-X (45 replacement) for a while ...
If the Navy is going to send Marines and Navy pilots to the F-35B from the T-45C, what is it about the "T-X" that is so compelling? Granted, the USN has had an eye on the T-X (45 replacement) for a while ...
I'm intrigued to know what possible sustained G requirement couldn't be met by the Hawk - perhaps with more thrust?
When it first appeared at Valley, wasn't it routinely flown at +8G? Until BWoS told the RAF that "You're eating up fatigue - and why so much G when you didn't take the Gnat / Hunter to the same limit?"
"Because we can....."
In your triggernometry days, Courtney, what limit was used during ACM?
When it first appeared at Valley, wasn't it routinely flown at +8G? Until BWoS told the RAF that "You're eating up fatigue - and why so much G when you didn't take the Gnat / Hunter to the same limit?"
"Because we can....."
In your triggernometry days, Courtney, what limit was used during ACM?
That's more than we routinely used at Chivenor - I think we aimed at +7G as the limit for those 'extend and pitch back' manoeuvres.
'Sustained +6.5-7.5G' in a steady level turn at altitude would be quite a demand, but what is the actual T-X requirement?
'Sustained +6.5-7.5G' in a steady level turn at altitude would be quite a demand, but what is the actual T-X requirement?
That would be because you often had pylons on, BEagle. Therefore +7.2/-3.5.
Or are you talking about the way we taught the studes? 7g, but the set ups were a limiting factor there too.
Sustained, was a different matter, of course. Keep it above 400kts and down at 5000' and you could do it nearly all day. Below 350 and you could bleed energy quite quickly. So it will depend how the sustain g requirements are written. Of course all that is for a T1/1A - bigger engines make happier pilots.
Or are you talking about the way we taught the studes? 7g, but the set ups were a limiting factor there too.
Sustained, was a different matter, of course. Keep it above 400kts and down at 5000' and you could do it nearly all day. Below 350 and you could bleed energy quite quickly. So it will depend how the sustain g requirements are written. Of course all that is for a T1/1A - bigger engines make happier pilots.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 17th Feb 2016 at 08:35.
Beagle
Actual requirements:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...rement-414531/
In a 10 July statement, the Air Education and Training Command (AETC) confirmed that the minimum T-X sustained g requirement of 6.5g and objective of 7.5g remains unchanged from the key performance parameter published in March, even though it would exclude a number of viable trainer options from the competition.
The requirement sets a high bar for manoeuvrability, requiring the T-X to sustain that load at a pressure altitude of 15,000ft for at least 140˚ of a full turn with minimal loss of energy and altitude.
“Initiated at or above 15,000ft pressure altitude, at or below Mach 0.9, and at or above 80% fuel weight, the aircraft’s flight path angle during this manoeuvre can be no lower than 15˚ nose low while losing no more than 2,000ft of vertical altitude and 10% of the initial airspeed,” the AETC says.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...rement-414531/
In a 10 July statement, the Air Education and Training Command (AETC) confirmed that the minimum T-X sustained g requirement of 6.5g and objective of 7.5g remains unchanged from the key performance parameter published in March, even though it would exclude a number of viable trainer options from the competition.
The requirement sets a high bar for manoeuvrability, requiring the T-X to sustain that load at a pressure altitude of 15,000ft for at least 140˚ of a full turn with minimal loss of energy and altitude.
“Initiated at or above 15,000ft pressure altitude, at or below Mach 0.9, and at or above 80% fuel weight, the aircraft’s flight path angle during this manoeuvre can be no lower than 15˚ nose low while losing no more than 2,000ft of vertical altitude and 10% of the initial airspeed,” the AETC says.
The bigger issue in the Q&A section of the link is the statement that, "The US Government has no concerns at this time regarding non-US contractors as primes. The Buy American Act will apply. " So unless you can buddy up with an American company, you might as well save your breath.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
General Dynamics was tied in with Alenia to offer the T-100 based on the M-346, but they pulled out for the same sustained G reason. I've heard no announcements of GD starting over with a clean sheet design. Alenia is looking for another prime to team with. So far no takers. And they don't seem to have tied in with a proven provider of simulator training, a very important piece to be missing.