Credit to David Kern and his Twitter page.  He caught Northrop-Grumman's "clean sheet" T-X prototype performing high-speed taxiing tests at Mojave (MHV / KMHV) today (19-Aug-2016).



As described by those who saw a model revealed (but not allowed to be photographed) earlier this year, it does indeed resemble a re-imagined single-engined T-38. Apparently NG's Scaled Composites built the prototype. Also of interest, the aircraft appears to be powered by a non-afterburning GE F404 engine (And checking the registration - N400NT - at the FAA site seems to confirm that - "Engine Model - F404-GE-102D").  Looks can be deceiving, but it looks far lighter than LockMart/KAI's T-50A, or even Northrop's F404 (w/afterburner)-powered F-5G/F-20. Also, given the seemingly small size of the airframe, I'd would love to know where the boom receptacle (and accompanying plumbing) will go (assuming this bird hasn't either)?






See:



https://twitter.com/David_Kern/status/766720549322051584



https://twitter.com/David_Kern/status/766720972376281089



https://twitter.com/David_Kern/status/766672289618272256



















*** UPDATE *** BOEING/SAAB T-X Teaser Images - 22-August-2016


Boeing/SAAB now respond with some hints as to their T-X design to be revealed in September 2016.


Aviation Week's James Drew tweets a couple of teaser images from Boeing/SAAB of their T-X demonstrator design. Stepped cockpits as one would expect on a trainer design and a shoulder mounted wing. PLUS - Another image from AvWeek's Tony Osborne which may suggest the aircraft's planform (note the stylized maneuver chart backdrop to each of the images).

See:

https://twitter.com/JamesDrewNews/status/767747706190176256

https://twitter.com/JamesDrewNews/status/767746864754094081




*** Tony Osborne's (AvWeek) 22-Aug-16 tweet: "I wonder if this is clue to the planform of @BoeingDefense T-X, a mix of F-35 and X-15..."

https://twitter.com/Rotorfocus/status/767758657140432896




 

Looks like a hopped up F-5 / F-20.

I like it.

I like the lines on that aircraft!

Gorgeous little bird..!

I'm still partial to the T-38 but that's pretty hot.

As I recall from the RFP the requirement isn't to be air refueling receiver capable, only to have a slipway for dry contacts.

Right. Which makes Northrop-Grumman and Boeing/SAAB's approaches to the RFP most interesting. They can really refine their designs at the most "efficient" vis-à-vis the RFP, versus LockMart/KAI's and Aermacchi ("Leonardo")/Raytheon's off-the-shelf offerings which have already gone through the rigors of testing and production engineering - not to mention they are already built structurally accounting for a significant (T-50) or secondary (M-346) combat capability.

 

Rumors surrounding the Boeing/SAAB aircraft (which has yet to be revealed) are that it is a "Gripen-lite," with a new planform (sans canards).  It will be interesting to see if it is as "lean" as the Northrop-Grumman proposal, or if it falls somewhere in between that and the heavier T-50.


Here is a June 13, 2016 photo of what is widely believed to be the main fuselage of the Boeing/SAAB T-X airframe being flown from Sweden to Boeing in St. Louis. This would seem to suggest Boeing/SAAB's proposal will be closer to the T-50 end of the spectrum in terms of size and weight.

See more:

Did Boeing Receive a T-X Prototype from SAAB?

by Aaron Mehta

Defense News

June 14, 2016

**More info & photos at the story linked at title ***

just kill it and eat it.

Boeing/SAAB are now set to reveal their T-X demonstrator in September 2016.  See tweets and "teaser" images now added to the original post.

So sad to see all those 747-400s.  Love flying in that plane.

Reminds me of the ParkZone Habu electric RC plane.

Boom receptacle?

Would this new trainer be better with a after burning engine?

For dry connections to get the basics down on a cheaper airframe.



 

Interesting....anybody know if the plan is to have these things at B courses, or incorporate tanker support into the IFF syllabus maybe?




Seems like an unnecessary requirement to me.

But then again, what the hell do I know...

I think it's cute.

My old man would have gotten a kick out of it.  As an instructor pilot he flew about eleventy thousand hours in T-38s... said it was one of the most fun aircraft he ever flew.

The RFP called for a lot of systems in the jet that don't exist in the T-38s today such as NVG compatibility, threat sensor simulation, data link, and other things so just where they are going to be used in the pipeline (or how the pipeline will change to leverage them) I couldn't tell you.



 

Also interesting...sounds like a pretty major overhaul is planned. Though I suppose that's to be expected when going back to single track from the SUPT structure they have now.

I gotta say that I think the T-X looks sexier.


Of course, I haven't the slightest idea about either of these planes' performance or even about the intended syllabus for the T-X UPT program, so who cares what looks better.



I WILL say, though, that I'm not a huge fan of both prototypes being (and therefore by assumption, the RFP requiring) a single engine trainer. With the T-6, this means that Air Force pilots will now go through all of primary pilot training and receive their wings having never shot a single engine approach (or more accurately, an OEI approach since all of their approaches are technically single engine), having never calculated single-engine drift down performance, having never performed a V1 cut, or having never had a discussion about what critical field length is (to list only a few examples). It seems to me that depriving students of dual engine training--when it's required in nearly any other professional pilot career field--is a disservice.

But presumably, this argument has been raised more than once at levels way above my own, and the Air Force saw a rationale behind it. I just hope that rationale was sound.