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.....?
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.....?
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.
T-X
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
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
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.
Senator who allows his Air NG to have equipment percieved as less than USAF has will be seeking a new job come election time.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
Mil 26 Man
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
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
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
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
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!
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
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.
Thread Starter
Jacko
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.
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.
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 ... 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)
Leading to:
Cheaper than T-X. 
(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.
And ... as I do a little light digging into Google ... 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 that includes a Head-Up Display (HUD), six multi-function displays (MFD) and Hands on Throttle And Stick (HOTAS), used at Naval Air Station Whiting Field, Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, and United States Naval Test Pilot School.
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 PT6-68D engine, and the structure is reinforced.
(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.
Biggest question is "What exactly are you going to defend against ?"
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?
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?
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.
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.