Jump to content

Northrop Grumman reveals its T-X contender


Navy Bird

Recommended Posts

The Northrop Grumman prototype for the USAF T-X competition has been spotted preparing for high-speed taxi testing in Mojave, CA. It is reportedly powered by a GE 404 jet engine.

 

large

 

The aircraft is being designed by NG's Scaled Composites Division and will be one of the contenders to replace the T-38. To my eyes, there is a bit of F-5, T-38, and F-20 (all Northrop products) in this new design.

 

We'll see! Boeing/Saab will unveil their clean sheet T-X prototype in September. Lockheed will go with the T-50, and Raytheon is teaming with Aermacchi to offer a version of the M-346/T-100.

 

Cheers,

Bill

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, what will happen is that the contenders will be whittled down to two, at which time there will be intense lobbying by the companies and the elected representatives whose constituencies will benefit from either one or the other getting the nod. Meanwhile the USAF will require alterations to the shortlisted types to meet their specific requirements, adding millions to the development costs.

After months of delay one type will be selected, at which point the losing candidate will take some form of legal action to have the decision annulled, citing irregularites, level of foreign involvement etc. There will be much wrangling during which time the programme will be stalled. Eventually the decision will be overturned and all the bidders will be invited to enter again.

By this point the T-38 will require a further life extension as it should have been retired three or four years earlier. This will take money out of the T-X programme, necessitating the existing requirements to be watered down as budgets are cut. Ultimately the original losing contender will be awarded the contract and will produce an off-the-shelf variant of the new trainer to meet the requirement, as that is all that can be afforded. Despite the publicity proclaiming the new trainer nobody will actually like it and everybody will be left asking why couldn't they have just had the original choice, which would have been a better aircraft, been in service five years ago and cost less.

Cynical? Moi?

Edited by T7 Models
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, what will happen is that the contenders will be whittled down to two, at which there will be intense lobbying by the companies and the elected representatives whose constituencies will benefit from either one or the other getting the nod. Meanwhile the USAF will require alterations to the shortlisted types to meet their specific requirements, adding millions to the development costs.

After months of delay one type will be selected, at which point the losing candidate will take some form of legal action to have the decision annulled, citing irregularites, level of foreign involvement etc. There will be much wrangling during which time the programme will be stalled. Eventually the decision will be overturned and all the bidders will be invited to enter again.

By this point the T-38 will require a further life extension as it should have been retired three or fours earlier. This will take money out of the T-X programme, necessitating the existing requirements to be watered down as budgets are cut. Ultimately the original losing contender will be awarded the contract and will produce an off-the-shelf variant of the new trainer to meet the requirement, as that is all that can be afforded. Despite the publicity proclaiming the new trainer nobody will actually like it and everybody will be left asking why couldn't they have just had the original choice, which would have been a better aircraft, been in service five years ago and cost less.

Cynical? Moi?

maybe quite a likely outcome actually!.....

but on the other hand, USAF is not prohibited to learn from the past!

when the luxury of only wanting something but not really needing it (no external threat e.g.) is over, reason might win again!!

maybe the USAF will eventually get a new tanker.... , oh wait , trainer!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raytheon/Leonardo have the best simulator technology (LVC) with the T-100 "system" so you'd think that would make them the frontrunners. I think you can discount any proposal based on a brand new airframe as bringing too much risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lately, the USAF's track record on procurements hasn't been all that stellar. Remember the Airbus/Boeing tanker affair? Airbus won!...oh, wait - they really didn't.

The USAF decided on the Chinook for a new rescue helicopter. Then Congress said "You can't be serious. That large, slow, noisy target? Try again."

They'll find a way to screw up this trainer program. Somehow, I think they've forgotten how to buy aircraft.

And not to pile on, but those God-awful Tigerstripe camo uniforms have got to go. I think someone in a senior position watched too many late-night Vietnam movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just the Air Force. Remember the Marine One debacle? It's the AW101 -sorry, US101, until more and more was to be crammed inside it and it became too expensive and was cancelled. Now it's the S-92, as the other contenders saw which way the wind was blowing and withdrew their bids.

I agree with magwitch. I do not see that any new designs will be shortlisted either, and it will be the M346 against the T-50. Whose turn is it this time to get a big contract? Lockheed Martin had the F-35, Boeing had the KC-46 and Northrop Grumman had the LRS-B, in that order. LM with the T-50?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They won't choose the M-346 - 'cos that would mean both the USAF and RusAF doing their flying training on the Yak-130!!!

Ken

They sure have started as the same aircraft, but today there's enough difference between the Macchi and Yak trainers that the USAF wouldn't worry too much about this.

Different story is if the USAF will adopt a foreign types, every time this was proposed it created problems with the Congress

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They sure have started as the same aircraft, but today there's enough difference between the Macchi and Yak trainers that the USAF wouldn't worry too much about this.

Different story is if the USAF will adopt a foreign types, every time this was proposed it created problems with the Congress

Wasn't that why the US101 was cancelled, serious lobbying from Sikorsky, amongst others, to buy American? I wonder whether non-US contractors will even bother writing brochures after that and the Airbus tanker debacle. So much for free trade and competition.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the US101 project also ran into significant technical and cost issues.

Yes. largely because the customer kept changing the spec beyond the original RFP and adding more to it, while expecting the contractor to offer the same performance for the same price. For example, one onboard safe was not enough; suddenly it HAD to have two, and so on. Henceforth the price rose to about $400 million per helicopter, at which point time was called.

Edited by T7 Models
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC, because of the all the secure comms/countermeasures and computers needed for 'Marine One' - IBM was the prime contractor on the US101 - with Agusta-Westland as subcontractor supplyimg the airframe.

At least that's how I remember it.... but I have been known to be wrong......

Ken

PS - Just found this:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_VH-71_Kestrel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They sure have started as the same aircraft, but today there's enough difference between the Macchi and Yak trainers that the USAF wouldn't worry too much about this.

Different story is if the USAF will adopt a foreign types, every time this was proposed it created problems with the Congress

Well, the T-6 Texan II is actually a Pilatus PC-9, with some modifications and made in USA. As long as it's not going to fight, they do buy some things abroad, sometimes.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lately, the USAF's track record on procurements hasn't been all that stellar. Remember the Airbus/Boeing tanker affair? Airbus won!...oh, wait - they really didn't.

The USAF decided on the Chinook for a new rescue helicopter. Then Congress said "You can't be serious. That large, slow, noisy target? Try again."

They'll find a way to screw up this trainer program. Somehow, I think they've forgotten how to buy aircraft.

They are doing the same with the A-10. USAF stupidity in the extreme.

I also note that the F-16 is going out of production next year. No more new aircraft after 44yrs of production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, what will happen is that the contenders will be whittled down to two, at which time there will be intense lobbying by the companies and the elected representatives whose constituencies will benefit from either one or the other getting the nod. Meanwhile the USAF will require alterations to the shortlisted types to meet their specific requirements, adding millions to the development costs.

After months of delay one type will be selected, at which point the losing candidate will take some form of legal action to have the decision annulled, citing irregularites, level of foreign involvement etc. There will be much wrangling during which time the programme will be stalled. Eventually the decision will be overturned and all the bidders will be invited to enter again.

By this point the T-38 will require a further life extension as it should have been retired three or four years earlier. This will take money out of the T-X programme, necessitating the existing requirements to be watered down as budgets are cut. Ultimately the original losing contender will be awarded the contract and will produce an off-the-shelf variant of the new trainer to meet the requirement, as that is all that can be afforded. Despite the publicity proclaiming the new trainer nobody will actually like it and everybody will be left asking why couldn't they have just had the original choice, which would have been a better aircraft, been in service five years ago and cost less.

Cynical? Moi?

And whatever the winner, the USAF will designate it something completely out of proper sequence, a la "F-35" and "B-21"!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USAF doesn't have a monopoly on embarrassing failures. Remember the USN's A-12 Avenger II project from the late 1980's/early 1990's? As one writer put it - "It wasn't an airplane, it was a train wreck". They killed off the A-6F Intruder II to pay for it. A-6F would have been an impressive long range heavy hauler, but decidedly non-stealthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...