Could an armed T-X adequately defend the United States?
Thread Starter
Could an armed T-X adequately defend the United States?
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.....?
“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.
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.
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.....?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
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?
By the time F/T-X has radar, AAR and armament fitted, would it get off the ground, let alone to intercept heights?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
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...
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...
A couple of dozen drones like the "Quasef-1" (see Yemen.....2 ) 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.
Thread Starter
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?
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?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where does "all" the fuel, weapons and operational electronics go??
>>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?
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?
Indeed.
A couple of dozen drones like the "Quasef-1" (see Yemen.....2 ) 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.
A couple of dozen drones like the "Quasef-1" (see Yemen.....2 ) 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.
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.