T-X Thread

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

airforces_freak

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 417
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2011, 03:26

Unread post02 Feb 2017, 23:31

durahawk wrote:
airforces_freak wrote:I really didn't think SNC/TAI with their twin engined (Williams FJ44-4M) Freedom Trainer would stand a chance in this race but after hearing news of the companies dropping out from the tender I think this partnership now has a chance. They are offering the cheapest alternative out there: the use of commercial engines.


Ummm... no. Two commercial engines that don't have any established logistical support whatsoever within DoD are not automatically cheaper than a single F404 that the military has been supporting, maintaining and overhauling for decades.


The Williams FJ44-4M was also proposed by Cessna in its Model 526 CitationJet Trainer for the United States Joint Primary Aircraft Training System program in 1993. I don't think it would be more expensive to support, maintenance and overhaul the Williams FJ44-4M should the SNC/TAI Freedom Trainer be selected. In fact, SNC has stated that its offer will include support, maintenance and overhaul supply chains.

Image
Offline

huggy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 573
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2004, 07:39

Unread post04 Feb 2017, 20:38

vilters wrote:OK, now a serious question from me/

Why is Northrop not "reviving" its F-20 into a new trainer version?

Talons, as all other F-5 airframe versions are known for their durability, reliability, and maintainability.
Exactly what you want/need for a trainer.

Add the F-20 improvements, new engine and avionix and get an upgraded version of a proven training system.


What is it about you guys that are "F-20 disciples"? Do you really understand what is needed in our next trainer? Let it go already.

My calendar says it is 2017. Let's get a good product that isn't based on a 50+ year old design.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6814
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post05 Feb 2017, 00:36

huggy wrote:
vilters wrote:OK, now a serious question from me/

Why is Northrop not "reviving" its F-20 into a new trainer version?

Talons, as all other F-5 airframe versions are known for their durability, reliability, and maintainability.
Exactly what you want/need for a trainer.

Add the F-20 improvements, new engine and avionix and get an upgraded version of a proven training system.


What is it about you guys that are "F-20 disciples"? Do you really understand what is needed in our next trainer? Let it go already.

My calendar says it is 2017. Let's get a good product that isn't based on a 50+ year old design.

LOL.. just like the the girl who "got away" way back when... she'd look a bit dated nowadays for sure.. :mrgreen:
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 339
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44
  • Location: US

Unread post09 Feb 2017, 15:22

Leonardo to offer T-100 training system for T-X program

Don't see how this turns out for them, especially given how Raytheon apparently thought the cost was several million too high.
u = (CB)⁻¹(cvdt_des - CAx)
Offline

arian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1203
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post10 Feb 2017, 02:06

rheonomic wrote:Leonardo to offer T-100 training system for T-X program

Don't see how this turns out for them, especially given how Raytheon apparently thought the cost was several million too high.


Don't know why they keep wasting their time. We're not going to get a Yak-130 clone.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1606
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post10 Feb 2017, 16:58

huggy wrote:
vilters wrote:OK, now a serious question from me/

Why is Northrop not "reviving" its F-20 into a new trainer version?

Talons, as all other F-5 airframe versions are known for their durability, reliability, and maintainability.
Exactly what you want/need for a trainer.

Add the F-20 improvements, new engine and avionix and get an upgraded version of a proven training system.


What is it about you guys that are "F-20 disciples"? Do you really understand what is needed in our next trainer? Let it go already.

My calendar says it is 2017. Let's get a good product that isn't based on a 50+ year old design.


It's because the F-20 really was a world beater* Two seat versions with combat capability would be invaluable after the stealth birds establish air superiority. In addition to those 200 or so F-15C's and 1,000 F-16's, you could fall back on XXX number of TF-20's. Flying with the AIM-9x and AMRAAM, they'd be formidable opponents. Small, lightweight and with a thrust to weight ratio of around 1:1 opens up all kinds of possibilities.

An F-20 with AMRAAM/9x's would be one dangerous foe. It also had/has robust air to ground (and even air to sea) capability. With $ scarce and every dollar counting, I'd want a combat capable trainer. Regardless if it's the F-20 or some other aircraft..

*Considering cost per flight hour, time to scramble and life cycle costs. Not only that, but the F-404 is very reliable, notoriously stingy on fuel consumption and (in the F-20), provides plenty of power.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6814
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post10 Feb 2017, 23:07

T-X isn't even officially calling for an Aggressor variant, let alone a Fighter variant. The AF wants to transition away from 4Gens as quickly as possible so building a large fleet of modernized F-20s runs counter to this.The F-20 lost to the F-16, it's day has come and gone.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

huggy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 573
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2004, 07:39

Unread post17 Feb 2017, 15:14

Mixelflick,
Please... put down the crack pipe.
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 339
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44
  • Location: US

Unread post14 Mar 2017, 23:45

u = (CB)⁻¹(cvdt_des - CAx)
Offline
User avatar

pmi

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2011, 09:12

Unread post15 Mar 2017, 17:44

rheonomic wrote:Textron's out.


Just chaff being separated. This became a two horse race the moment Northrop left the field.
Offline

airforces_freak

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 417
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2011, 03:26

Unread post16 Mar 2017, 15:21

2 more Defence giants mull joining forces in the Sierra Nevada Corporation/ Turkish Aerospace Industries Freedom Trainer program for the T-X tender.

Most likely Northrop Grumman and Raytheon.
Offline
User avatar

zerion

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 466
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
  • Location: Everywhere like such as...

Unread post11 May 2017, 15:42

Swedish Air Force interested in Boeing-Saab trainer jet, but probably not other T-X options
By: Valerie Insinn

STOCKHOLM — If Boeing and Saab’s trainer wins the U.S. Air Force’s T-X competition, the Swedish Air Force will put serious thought into buying it. If another company nabs the contract, however, Sweden will likely opt for a much less expensive turboprop training aircraft, a Swedish Air Force official said Monday.

Sweden currently has an inventory of 50 Saab 105 trainers, which were introduced in the late 1960s. Those planes are aging and increasingly more expensive to maintain, said Col. Magnus Liljegren, head of the Air Force department at the Swedish Armed Forces Headquarters.

Although the Swedish Air Force had planned to begin phasing out Saab 105s in the early 2020s, the government made a decision to continue operating them until about 2025 and 2026 — an outcome that means the service can consider the T-X offering jointly designed by U.S. aerospace company Boeing and Sweden’s own Saab...

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/swe ... %20Roundup
Offline

johnwill

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1994
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post12 May 2017, 00:31

mixelflick wrote:
huggy wrote:
vilters wrote:OK, now a serious question from me/

Why is Northrop not "reviving" its F-20 into a new trainer version?

Talons, as all other F-5 airframe versions are known for their durability, reliability, and maintainability.
Exactly what you want/need for a trainer.

Add the F-20 improvements, new engine and avionix and get an upgraded version of a proven training system.


What is it about you guys that are "F-20 disciples"? Do you really understand what is needed in our next trainer? Let it go already.

My calendar says it is 2017. Let's get a good product that isn't based on a 50+ year old design.


It's because the F-20 really was a world beater* Two seat versions with combat capability would be invaluable after the stealth birds establish air superiority. In addition to those 200 or so F-15C's and 1,000 F-16's, you could fall back on XXX number of TF-20's. Flying with the AIM-9x and AMRAAM, they'd be formidable opponents. Small, lightweight and with a thrust to weight ratio of around 1:1 opens up all kinds of possibilities.

An F-20 with AMRAAM/9x's would be one dangerous foe. It also had/has robust air to ground (and even air to sea) capability. With $ scarce and every dollar counting, I'd want a combat capable trainer. Regardless if it's the F-20 or some other aircraft..

*Considering cost per flight hour, time to scramble and life cycle costs. Not only that, but the F-404 is very reliable, notoriously stingy on fuel consumption and (in the F-20), provides plenty of power.


You mean like the T-50?
Offline

arian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1203
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post12 May 2017, 02:14

Two seat versions with combat capability would be invaluable after the stealth birds establish air superiority. In addition to those 200 or so F-15C's and 1,000 F-16's, you could fall back on XXX number of TF-20's. Flying with the AIM-9x and AMRAAM, they'd be formidable opponents. Small, lightweight and with a thrust to weight ratio of around 1:1 opens up all kinds of possibilities.


After you've established air superiority, what use are xxx numbers of light-weight fighters armed with AIM-9X/Amraams? And in what scenario would the 2,000+ other conventional multi-role fighters of the USAF, USN and Marines, not be sufficient and require an additional number of light-weight trainers?

What would be useful would be a multi-role aircraft with the ability to carry out some useful air-ground missions, with reasonable range to maintain a sufficient sortie rate, and also be sufficiently capable of defending itself against anything the enemy can throw (hence no need for escorts). An F-20 or even T-50 of today couldn't do any of that as well as an F-16 could (an F-20 of 1980s maybe could, relative to its contemporaries).

With $ scarce and every dollar counting, I'd want a combat capable trainer. Regardless if it's the F-20 or some other aircraft..


With money scare, I'd think they would be best specialized for their training mission, of which there is more than enough to go around, then be compromised by the requirement that they also carry Harpoon anti-ship missiles around.

I think there's a reason every light-weight fighter design in the world has failed, even in places one would think it would be successful (e.g. AMX, armed versions of Hawk, armed versions of L-39, even going back to the Gnat. It never seems to work. No I don't consider the F-5 as being in that category since in contemporary terms it was not a light-weight fighter but comparable to most country's front-line fighters.)
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2110
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post12 May 2017, 10:51

IMO lightweight fighters have the problem that they are envisioned to have 80 percent of the capability at 20 percent of the cost of real fighter aircraft. They however always end up with having 20 percent of the capability at 80 percent of the cost. I think there is no way of having actual Hi-Lo mix that works well. Best result seems to come from Very Hi-Hi mix like F-22 and F-35 or F-15/F-16. Many smaller countries and services opt for having no mix but having just "Hi" and go with just one type.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests