USAF T-X

Deliveries of the Boeing/Saab T-7 Red Hawk to the US Air Force began last year, and three service test T-7s have been delivered so far. However, the initial operating capability of the T-7 Red Hawk has been postponed to 2028.

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2023/10/27/boeing-deli…

https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/2024/03/18/air-forces-t-7-trainer…

[h=1]Boeing Making Waves In Simulation And Training[/h]

The GBTS includes four aircrew training devices. There are two high-end devices: a weapons system trainer (WST) and an operational flight trainer (OFT), both front-seat positions featuring Boeing’s Constant Resolution Visual System (CRVS) display technology, but with differing fields of view—360 deg. horizontal for the WST and 300 deg. for the OFT.

CRVS systems Boeing has fielded for F-22, F-15 and F-16 mission-training centers mostly use 4K resolution projectors, says Deidrick. For the WST and OFT destined for the T-X program, the company has upgraded to 8K e-shift projectors, based on pixel technology developed with Japan’s JVC. Through e-shift, a projector produces two images alternated at 120 Hz (120 times per sec.) to achieve 8K resolution—quadruple the number of pixels a 4K projector produces. The upgraded projectors meet the Air Force’s visual acuity requirement of 2.5 arc-min. per optical line pair, or about 20/25 vision.

A unit training device has the same cockpit as the WST and OFT, but with lesser, “out-the-window” visual fidelity—just a forward flat screen display—and no dynamic motion seat. A part-task trainer consists of desktop displays and associated HOTAS controls.

The IOS mimics the back-seat position, from where the instructor pilot can monitor and communicate with the student pilot, control training scenarios and fly the aircraft. It is a detached, desk-type station with multiple monitors, a device Boeing adapted from the station it developed for F-22 Raptor training.

The seven devices Boeing will deliver in the program’s EMD phase are two WSTs, one OFT, one unit training device, one part-task trainer, one mission debrief system and one ground-support station, says Deidrick.

Source:
AviationWeek

U.S. Air Force Airman Gets Sortie on Boeing T-X Trainer Jet For First Time

“The T-X will revolutionize how we train pilots in the future. From the performance, flight characteristics, data management, avionics, higher angle of attack – the T-X brings a high level of realism, 5th generation capabilities and futuristic training concepts that we simply do not have at this time,” said Doherty [, the 19th Air Force commander]. “I’m excited for the future of the flying training community and how it will make us more lethal, competitive, and agile with our production pipelines.”

Source:
DefPostcom

SAAB announced that their part of the T-X contract is 25 B SEK ($2,74B), if all options are exercised.

It may be no surprise that the Navy intends to extend the life of its fleet of T-45 Goshawk jet trainers. But the 30- year plan for the first time announces a program to replace it, beginning in the 2020s. This may help clear up an aviation mystery. For the Air Force’s recent T-X jet trainer competition, two contenders entered existing aircraft, but Boeing decided to design its entry from scratch. That is Defense’s 30-Year Aircraft Plan Reveals New Details www.crs.gov | 7-5700 usually more expensive than bidding an existing design. Further, the Boeing design included things like a shouldermounted wing, long landing gear, and leading edge slats typically found in Navy aircraft, and an engine already in Navy inventory. With the announcement of a T-45 followon program, Boeing’s decision to go into T-X with a fresh design may have a clearer rationale.

Source:
The Congressional research service, Defense’s 30-Year Aircraft Plan Reveals New Details
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/IF10999.pdf

In that case there is still time for Lockheed to protest. Watch this space.

If Lockheed were going to protest the result of the T-X program, then they should have started it as soon as the award was given to Boeing.

The rules give the losers 10 days to review the winning bid, then another 10 or so days to file a protest with GAO.

Usually they wait for a formal debrief from the service but we are likely past that now so there is unlikely to be a protest.

If Lockheed were going to protest the result of the T-X program, then they should have started it as soon as the award was given to Boeing.

The price on offer isn’t always the whole story. They still had to convince the acquisition officials that they had managed risk well, and that they offered performance to meet the requirements. That said, they did likely bid very aggressively. But given that this is going to be the largest trainer competition of the next many decades most bidders would have bid aggressively. The stakes were high..350-450 trainers for the USAF and possibly a couple of hundred for the USN down the road. On top of that there would be the potential to export and any future variants (light attack, aggressor etc etc).

t is not competition anymore, just dumping.

That is not true. If the intention was to just to low ball the heck of he competition then Boeing would have likely wanted to pick a proven design and then assume production risk and bid a very aggressive price. But this was not the strategy they chose. Instead, Boeing went into the competition, likely assuming the most amount of upfront risk as they not only partnered but also invested upfront to design, build and begin testing of a totally clean sheet design. Then in order to win the competition they also chose to bid aggressively which most would have given the stakes involves. For them though there is likely a financial rationale in that they probably had a lower cost element as well given their existing supplier relationships and contracts, a known production site with trained workers in St. Louis etc etc. In the end unless we learn more via a protest, it appears the USAF took the most riskiest design, passed that risk on to the designers and then picked a fairly low bid price as the winner. It is a win-win for them. Only risk the USAF is taking here is that a potential EMD delay, while not incurring a cost to them directly, would still cost them in terms of having to run the legacy trainers longer.

9.2 billion US$ for 475 airframes, 120 simulators and a full development and suport program?!
Boeing underbid this one…
Chaps are going to make their money on sustainment and suport.

Boeing and its suppliers are incentivised to get a grip on their cost as early as possible in order to maximize profits. Production Lots 1 through 4 are Fixed Price incentive Firm contracts which means that while the price ceiling is fixed and there is a general profit target, there is no firm profit ceiling or floor. This means that if Boeing can get out of the door fast they can make a good amount of money upfront (they could potentially also loose a lot here). Lots 5 through 11 are firm fixed price so if they do well on the first 4 lots they should lock a decent profit in through the end of production. The economics of this program would be very interesting to study given that the traditional “Avionics and electronics” based cost creep does not apply to many elements of it.

If there is indeed no protest on the T-X, then Dr. Roper and his predecessor have indeed done a amazing job at working with all industry partners given that this program was trying out a few acquisition firsts for the AF.

Well, if the price offered by Boeing are those it would have won anyway, no matter the bird it would have presented.
It is not competition anymore, just dumping.

9.2 billion US$ for 475 airframes, 120 simulators and a full development and suport program?!
Boeing underbid this one…
Chaps are going to make their money on sustainment and suport.

https://youtu.be/7JA2wjKO9mY

If you don’t like the rules/requirements don’t play (like Northrop Grumman ended up doing). Within the technical and financial scope of the requirements, Boeing was adjudged to offer the best value for the overall system. It remains to be seen whether this is protest proof, but there are some signs out there pointing to very aggressive bidding on part of Boeing.

The USAF is unlikely to design a new trainer for the next 50 years if not more. If anyone here or elsewhere thinks he/she knows exactly what the training needs will be, how they’ll evolve, and how to best characterize those needs in terms of technical requirements, based on what decisions were made elsewhere years/decades earlier then he/she is highly mistaken. The USAF, via its own needs assessment and requirements put forward a set of technical requirements that it based on its best analysis at the time met forecasted future need i.e. the attributes a 2020s trainer should possess so that it can keep doing its job in 2070. The USAF then engaged industry (including foreign OEMs) to best understand the cost, risk and performance trades and adjusted the final RFP accordingly. It for the first time, was willing to pay additional upfront cost for better performance and improved specs in other areas (such as reliablity etc). The three competing OEMs saw that they had a shot and bid a price and given the stakes (500-1000 trainers to be produced over the next decades) it would be the most consequential bid decisions for this portfolio for them.

Korea Aerospace Industries, South Korea’s sole aircraft manufacturer, said Friday it lost a huge U.S. military training aircraft bid due to a big gap in the price it offered compared with Boeing Co.

The U.S. Air Force has selected Boeing over the KAI-Lockheed Martin Corp. consortium for its T-X trainer program, as the former submitted the lowest price — US$9.2 billion — a KAI spokesman said over the phone.

“Boeing’s bidding price was unbeatably low,” he said.

KAI didn’t provide its own bidding price for its supersonic jet.

http://www.koreatimesus.com/s-korea-…ainer-jet-bid/

It’s sad to see the M346 loosing a major competition but the outcome was predictable: as written years ago now, the requirements were very demanding for that older airframe. The KAI/LM T-50 made it thanks only to its sophistication (the attempt made to be a LWF). With the fact that all sensors would be offboarded, there was a boulevard for a lightweight, nimble, modern and simple airframe that Boeing took with success.

There is nothing more than that decipher in this decision. Boeing win here by partnering with Saab where elsewhere they won by partnering with Leonardo… An Italian company shall we all remember 😉

I will not write about the final no-surprise result of the competition as I think everyone would imagine my though about the whole of it.

I think it’s better to point out two critical points emerging from the discussion .

Between the last pure 4-th generation plane and the first 5gen one there lies ALL actual first line fighters of ALL word producers outside US (plus F/A-18).
Call them 4,5 gen like we do in Europe, 4+( or ++) like in the East, outcome didn’t change: their respective flight pattern is radically different from those of previous fighters,4 gen included and cannot be simulated using even the best legacy trainers like Hawk or MB-339.

You would instead need to focus on Immediate Turning Rate and high AoA manoeuvres (including low speed handling, probably the most tactically useful and still most underrated advantage of the “4plus”), for this ones, no need to have afterburners or even the plus on G numbers that was added (may I say quite on purpose, without no one taking it as a personal offence, please?) in the T-X program requirements
.
This however comes with a cost, any of the new gen trainers even subsonic ones like Macchi/Yak will cost sensibly more for each flying hours than even the best of previous gen trainers
.
Solution was found , in Italy and it seem even in Russian service trough passing to a three-trainers model each with different characteristics from previous one.

Basically, it emcopasses a beefed up primary trainer like SF-260T or Yak-152 to eat out a part of the syllabus previously made with the larger one, a toned down jet trainer (compared with former legacy ones) but still with “plus” features for basic and a part of advanced schedule and finally the high performance new-gen ones for the last part of advanced one and a consistent part of the syllabus actually made on OCU version of fighters.
Sum of the three ended up (almost in Italian experience, the ones that have already put the model in working order) sensibly less than the former two trainers model, providing even a way smoother transition between the different phases of program.

Now, what will be the US model instead? What they actually use for primary and basic trainers? Have them a viable plan to substitute/ upgrade them or like often happen (not just in US) they have focused just on the economical and technical aspect of the program actually ongoing without looking at the whole picture?

Sorry, double post.

Sorry, usual problem for posting.

Btw, they have sorf of come full circle:
N-156, T-38, F-5A, F-5E, F-17, F-18A, F-18E, T-X

had hey chosen the Northrop T-X, that would have made more sense

Regarding Sweden, remember that 10% of the so said 9+b$ contract are for Saab. The perspectives are also open for this new successful team to confront other challenges (I will remind you that this is basically a one year fast prototyped bug-free winning design – not something unremarkable today). Expect them to challenge the stealthy UCAV market.