Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 19 of 20 FirstFirst ... 9151617181920 LastLast
Results 541 to 570 of 588

Thread: USAF T-X

  1. #541
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,016
    A few more from Boeing -



    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  2. #542
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Southern Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    167
    Say Boeing wanted to add an F414 engine, single seat/more fuel, and full avionics suite to their baby, making it a direct competitor to the Gripen, what do you think would be SAAB's reaction ?

  3. #543
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    156
    I imagine SAAB wouldn't be too pleased although such possibilities could have been already settled in whatever partnership contract was signed between the companies.

  4. #544
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,045
    T-X isnt going to compete with gripen speed wise anytime soon,
    at best it would compete with F-18E
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  5. #545
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,016
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL View Post
    Say Boeing wanted to add an F414 engine, single seat/more fuel, and full avionics suite to their baby, making it a direct competitor to the Gripen, what do you think would be SAAB's reaction ?
    And what would those billions in IRAD get them a decade from now? Nothing really given that those that wanted such a single engine aircraft would have multiple options by then including the Gripen-E and HAL LCA. As it is Boeing isn't having a heck of a lot of success marketing the Super Hornet around the world given the competition. A decade from now they will be neck deep in competition with Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin to provide both the PCA to the USAF and the FA-XX to the USN.

    If Boeing win, I do expect them (and Lockheed if they win) to pitch a variant of this aircraft for the Aggressor role, and for the USN's training needs. It would however not be as dramatic as a significant upgrade to include larger wings, larger engine and more fuel for example.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  6. #546
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Stockholm / Istanbul
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL View Post
    Say Boeing wanted to add an F414 engine, single seat/more fuel, and full avionics suite to their baby, making it a direct competitor to the Gripen, what do you think would be SAAB's reaction ?
    Boeing T-X is structurally weak to be a fighter comparable to Gripen. The whole idea of developing a new design (instead of offering two seat gripens) was to make it tailored for training. That means lighter structure than a similar sized fighter since its supposedly not going to carry ordnance. Well every trainer design in the last decades actually develop armed versions it's more a light attack variant. Still never close to Gripen. They wouldn't compete in the same segment market. Although they could complement eachother...

    \\Dan
    Latencia Profecionalis

  7. #547
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Stockholm / Istanbul
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    And what would those billions in IRAD get them a decade from now? Nothing really given that those that wanted such a single engine aircraft would have multiple options by then including the Gripen-E and HAL LCA. As it is Boeing isn't having a heck of a lot of success marketing the Super Hornet around the world given the competition. A decade from now they will be neck deep in competition with Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin to provide both the PCA to the USAF and the FA-XX to the USN.

    If Boeing win, I do expect them (and Lockheed if they win) to pitch a variant of this aircraft for the Aggressor role, and for the USN's training needs. It would however not be as dramatic as a significant upgrade to include larger wings, larger engine and more fuel for example.
    ^^ Exactly.

    If Boeing realy was aiming for a fighter version of T-X they could have just as well slimmed two seat gripens to fit the T-X
    Latencia Profecionalis

  8. #548
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,210
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL View Post
    Say Boeing wanted to add an F414 engine, single seat/more fuel, and full avionics suite to their baby, making it a direct competitor to the Gripen, what do you think would be SAAB's reaction ?
    Actually I don't think they will be that bothered for a very simple reason, if the Boeing/SAAB design wins T-X they will be huge numbers of aircraft being built not only for the USAF but also other nations that want to operate the same platform. That will be very lucrative for SAAB in the long term!

    This is much the same as BAE Systems and the F-35 vs Typhoon. People have pointed out that F-35 is taking potential sales from Typhoon, not realising that their participation in the F-35 program dwarfs their participation in Typhoon! A win for either type is a win for BAE Systems likewise every T-X sold if they win the contract is a win for SAAB!
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  9. #549
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL View Post
    Say Boeing wanted to add an F414 engine, single seat/more fuel, and full avionics suite to their baby, making it a direct competitor to the Gripen, what do you think would be SAAB's reaction ?
    Boeing are free to design whatever aircraft they desire,
    as long as they put their own money into the project.
    A single seat plane is obviously not a trainer, so it will not affect the T-X deal.

  10. #550
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL View Post
    Say Boeing wanted to add an F414 engine, single seat/more fuel, and full avionics suite to their baby, making it a direct competitor to the Gripen, what do you think would be SAAB's reaction ?
    My guess is Boeing would also need to do a major upgrade on the T-X landing gear. Currently it looks a bit light to me, if you want to start carrying warloads on the aircraft.

    It is super to see this Boeing T-X looking so strong in the T-X bid. I wish I was working on it. The project has gone from a clean sheet of paper to a very sensibly looking modern jet, in a very sensibly short time.

  11. #551
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,016
    Well from my personal interactions with Boeing employees (not on the program) they do seem highly confident and expect Boeing to develop the BTX further. Even to the point of doing so if they are not down selected. TIFWIW
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  12. #552
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,354
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    Well from my personal interactions with Boeing employees (not on the program) they do seem highly confident and expect Boeing to develop the BTX further. Even to the point of doing so if they are not down selected. TIFWIW
    So to speak, Employee expectations and corporate strategy are not always on the same line.

    By the way, I was looking at the type of flying boom used on the prototypes to get an indication of where they where in the flight regime and didn't found the exact model. But I have to say that I would be more used to stare at the one fitted on NASA planes.

  13. #553
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    1,986
    Quote Originally Posted by Justin2 View Post
    My guess is Boeing would also need to do a major upgrade on the T-X landing gear. Currently it looks a bit light to me, if you want to start carrying warloads on the aircraft.
    No need to upgrade the landing gear. It is borrowed from the F-16.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  14. #554
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,354
    In-cockpit 360 view of BT-X flight:

    Last edited by TomcatViP; 5th March 2017 at 23:58.

  15. #555
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,841
    Something isn't right how Northrop went silent on their design after withdrawing from the competition.

    I'm really surprised its been virtually zero information released. Boeing in sharp contrast is running a media circus.
    Go Huskers!

  16. #556
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by MadRat View Post
    Something isn't right how Northrop went silent on their design after withdrawing from the competition.

    I'm really surprised its been virtually zero information released. Boeing in sharp contrast is running a media circus.
    Why wouldn't Northrop go silent about it considering they don't intend on selling it anytime soon?

  17. #557
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Z1pp0 View Post
    Boeing T-X is structurally weak to be a fighter comparable to Gripen. The whole idea of developing a new design (instead of offering two seat gripens) was to make it tailored for training. That means lighter structure than a similar sized fighter since its supposedly not going to carry ordnance. Well every trainer design in the last decades actually develop armed versions it's more a light attack variant. Still never close to Gripen. They wouldn't compete in the same segment market. Although they could complement eachother...

    \\Dan
    Not really. The T-X has survive handling from inexperienced pilots several times a day and last for a long time too. A Gripen is not flown every day with some combat load or to the G-limits to have lower operating cost and a longer life-time in doing so.
    In allowed cycle-loads they will not differ.

  18. #558
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,210
    Quote Originally Posted by MadRat View Post
    Something isn't right how Northrop went silent on their design after withdrawing from the competition.

    I'm really surprised its been virtually zero information released. Boeing in sharp contrast is running a media circus.
    To be honest once they were forced to drop the Hawk when they realised that there was no way it was going to meet the requirements and they won the next generation bomber contest Northrop Grumman's heart was not particularly in it. Not to talk down Scaled Composites but the NG offering built by them was lack-luster, that it was snuck out for taxis test with no fanfare whatsoever and the prototype just didn't look to be as developed as alternatives set off bells in my head.

    My guess is they stuck with it using a design that heavily called upon the aerodynamic work done with the Tigershark and then lost interest once they got the next Generation bomber. Also economics must of been a factor, Boeing are going to put forward a VERY aggressive price on this one!
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  19. #559
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,841
    Realize that the bid is cost of materials and labor rather than a traditional overall bid. The overall total price is pretty much the same for all parties involved, they only have wiggle room on getting costs of materials and labor down in order to improve profits. More or less the baseline contract is a crud pie that you swallow initially then try to upsell from there. Not much different than how the government was buying products during WW2.
    Go Huskers!

  20. #560
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    217
    Just found this video on Lockheed Martins YouTube channel, featuring the T-50 T-X trainer prototype.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKEWtrPIpF8

  21. #561
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,354
    DRS chief executive Bill Lynn (Leonardo USA):

    While the M-346 traces its lineage to the Russian Yak-130, Lynn argues today’s aircraft has evolved since the Finmeccanica and Yakovlev partnership.

    “The M-346 has long since progressed and it’s quite a different design and different program,” he says. “I don’t think there’s much overlap. The airframe has been changed, the cockpit changed, the flight envelope is different.”

    Source:
    FlightGlobal.com

  22. #562
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,354
    Textron AirLand to forgo T-X bid with Scorpion jet

    Textron Airland has officially decided against offering its Scorpion jet for the Air Force’s T-X trainer competition, ending speculation about whether the aircraft would emerge as a dark horse candidate.

    “We certainly believe the Scorpion can fit a good training role, [...] but with the requirements that had been put out there for the T-X, we don’t believe the Scorpion fits all the requirements,” said Bill Harris, the company’s vice president of Scorpion jet sales.
    Source:
    DefenseNews.com

  23. #563
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    98
    Northrop Grumman and Raytheon may join the Sierra Nevada Corporation/Turkish Aerospace Industries developed Freedom Trainer trainer for the US Air Force T-X tender.

  24. #564
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,016
    Quote Originally Posted by Bayar View Post
    Northrop Grumman and Raytheon may join the Sierra Nevada Corporation/Turkish Aerospace Industries developed Freedom Trainer trainer for the US Air Force T-X tender.
    It will still have no chance. This program will be decided between the BTX and the T-50.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 16th March 2017 at 15:11.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  25. #565
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,354
    In a serie of revelation yesterday, Leonardo CEO revealed that Raytheon-Honeywell impasse to blame for T-X breakup

    “The problem with Raytheon was not (our) price, because Raytheon checked it against a U.S. benchmark and our prices were lower.”

    Moretti suggested Raytheon did have a problem with conditions set down by Honeywell, which provides propulsion for the jet, which was renamed the T-100 for the bid.

    “Raytheon could not get what they wanted with Honeywell on the engines,” he said.
    [...]
    it was time Italy sold a defense product in the U.S., given Italy’s long history of buying U.S. products, from the AV8 jump jet up to the F-35. “We can not only buy U.S. products and not be able to sell a single product,”
    Source:
    DefenseNews.com

  26. #566
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Southern Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    167
    Damn shame.
    The Leonardo T-100 is a proven, advanced training system, and the US could do much worse than picking it as their new training system.
    BUT, its not shiny and new like the Boeing, and, us being plane geeks, we all like new.

    Incidentally, didn't Boeing have an agreement with Alenia/aermacchi to market the M-346 about 10 yrs ago ?

  27. #567
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,708
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    It will still have no chance. This program will be decided between the BTX and the T-50.
    Boeing should take this one comfortably. Practically speaking, the choice of a trainer makes very marginal difference to the capability of the graduating pilots. Meanwhile, LM's Ft. Worth facility is just flowing over with business while Boeing has started laying off people at St. Louis (with the end approaching for the F-15 & SH production).

    Boeing's entry will meet the USAF's criteria while allowing skilled manpower to be retained in Missouri. No brainer really (though they'd officially justify it on techno-financial grounds).
    Last edited by Vnomad; 17th March 2017 at 02:04.

  28. #568
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    It will still have no chance. This program will be decided between the BTX and the T-50.
    If the US Air Force will decide on the basis of technology and performance the partnership between Northrop Grumman/Raytheon AND Sierra Nevada Corporation/Turkish Aerospace Industries will most definitely win.

    SNC/TAI's Freedom Trainer offers more technology and is able to withstand more G's than its competitors.

  29. #569
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    1,986
    Quote Originally Posted by Bayar View Post
    Northrop Grumman and Raytheon may join the Sierra Nevada Corporation/Turkish Aerospace Industries developed Freedom Trainer trainer for the US Air Force T-X tender.
    You got a source for that or is it just you speculating? Because I don't see NG or Raytheon burning any money by partnering up with TAI. They had a much better chance with their own aircraft yet chose to walk away so why would they invest in something that has no chance to win.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  30. #570
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,016
    Quote Originally Posted by Bayar View Post
    If the US Air Force will decide on the basis of technology and performance the partnership between Northrop Grumman/Raytheon AND Sierra Nevada Corporation/Turkish Aerospace Industries will most definitely win.

    SNC/TAI's Freedom Trainer offers more technology and is able to withstand more G's than its competitors.
    How many demonstrators will SNC/TAI provide for the USAF to evaluate? How much have they invested in de-risking the program? Could you provide me exact details of how many Gs (both generally, and as they apply to the T-X requirements) each T-X variant is able to handle with evidence. While you are at it, please also provide source that both NG and Raytheon are putting company money down for something that has zero chance of even being taken serious leave aside winning.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 2 guests)

  1. Deino

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES