T-X getting interesting

a reply to: Zaphod58

I was only thinking in terms of how "exotic" the platforms that this aircraft will be training pilots for are.

These other trainers seem alright for training European or Korean pilots to fly 4th gen aircraft, just as the T-33 was fine to train pilots to fly 1st and 2nd gen fighters, the Fougas, Provosts, etc were fine to train pilots to fly Mirages/Buccaneers/Jaguars, and the Hawks/Alpha Jets were fine to train pilots for Tornadoes and Typhoons.

I understand that the USAF is crunched for cash, and while simulators can help a bit, it just seems like there's a huge technology/complexity gap between the T-X contenders we've seen so far and the 5th (and 6th) generation aircraft that they will be training pilots for.

a reply to: Barnalby

And the only truly exotic part is the cockpit. The biggest change is the sensor system. The cockpit of the T-X will reflect that.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I was also thinking in terms of the F-35's unique handling and throttle response due to it's single gigantic engine.

The F-35 almost comes across like a 21st century F-105, though now that I think of it, that's pretty much exactly what it is.

a reply to: Barnalby

I'd put it closer to an A-7. With an integrated cloaking device.

a reply to: Barnalby

All of which will be learned in the simulator and aircraft. That's basic aerodynamics. Learning to deal with the sensor fusion will be much harder.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So I guess the question now will be an accompanying "TQ-X" to help train young pilots about how to queue up and control a complementary UAV under various circumstances :p

I could imagine that something like a pilotless T-37 would be perfect!

a reply to: Zaphod58

Textron says 'no' to making a clean sheet T-X. IF the USAF decides to change the requirements, they'll compete the Scorpion, otherwise the cost of developing a clean sheet design is too much at this point.

www.defensenews.com...

a reply to: anzha

Told you they wouldn't.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yup. I have to wonder if they are actually reading the board here. Timing of our convos and the articles that seem to follow is awfully interesting at times.

a reply to: anzha

You finally noticed that? A couple of us have been laughing about that for awhile now.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Only been here 6 months...

a reply to: Zaphod58

Stupid crazy thought for those watching us:

Mitsubishi ought to team with General Dynamics to offer the X-2 as a trainer.

a reply to: anzha
Naaah that would be too easy for them..

a reply to: Blackfinger

Probably dump the thrust vectoring, but...

yeah. Building 300 odd for the US Air Force would make for a great practice run for Mitsubishi.

That's 3 1/2 times as much as what they did for the F-2.

I realize almost all would be built in the US, but the tech dev would be paid for...and I bet pieces could be built some here and some there as a swap...

a reply to: anzha

I like this idea way, way too much.

It works on so many levels, i mean the X-2 even LOOKS a lot like a twin-tailed stealthified T-38...

And I'd also wager than even with (especially with the thrust vectoring) it's a much better flying introduction to a 5th (and more importantly, a 6th) generation fighter than the other glorified Hawks and Alpha Jets that they're considering.

a reply to: Barnalby

I know. It fits a bit too well.

Alas, probably not going to happen.

The AF has said requirements are largely frozen at this point.

www.defensenews.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

And they might want a derivative of the T-X (called AT-X) for the A-10 replacement.

Textron has gotta be smacking their forehead right now.

www.flightglobal.com...

a reply to: anzha

I still don't get why they don't relinquish the CAS role to the army. A relatively inexpensive Scorpion-style platform designed as a jet-powered OV-10-on-steroids would be a fantastic addition to the helos, and could well come out without any of the burdens the USAF brass might place on it to sex it up in the RFP process.