T-X Thread

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7698
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post28 Sep 2018, 14:11

talkitron wrote:Other than being a new design and a low price, what are the known distinguishing features of the Boeing/SAAB design?

Well, "new design" covers a lot of territory... More will be revealed in due time.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

Scorpion1alpha

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 1623
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:47

Unread post28 Sep 2018, 19:27

Congratulations to Boeing and Saab. I'm very pleased with this decision. I feel the Boeing/Saab design is the right choice and they will deliver as specified and promised.
I'm watching...
Offline

tbarlow

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 394
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2007, 00:35
  • Location: San Antonio, Tx

Unread post28 Sep 2018, 22:13

Anyone know what the MDS will be? The T-?
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 646
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post29 Sep 2018, 00:30

thepointblank wrote:
sferrin wrote:I'm surprised at this. It was Lockheed's to lose. T-50s are in production right now. I wonder how many delays and cost increases we'll see in this as Boeing tries to figure it out. (It's probably a tad more difficult than making a 767 into a tanker when they'd already done that before.)

I'm reading Boeing is assuming almost ALL of the risk in their offering; they offered a fixed-price contract. If Boeing blows the budget, they could be out millions, even billions. Risky for sure, for Boeing.


Boeing also makes a lot of money on the commercial side, which allows them to bid more aggressively than LM or NG can usually.
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2166
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post29 Sep 2018, 08:47

Lots of questions surrounding this.

First , for the life of me I couldn't find the name of the Boeing design. Boeing's T-X proposal is what everyone seems to call it. And is it just a prototype or is it the production model.

I believe the aircraft itself is just part of the program and simulators and integration with other training assets is another.
But just judging by the aircraft alone, did the DOD make the right call? The only performance metric I found was an emphasis to sustain 6.5-7.5G maneuvers. Perhaps our resident aero engineers can do some quick analysis between the contenders, I personally think the Lockheed T-50A was the toughest competitor.
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2635
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post29 Sep 2018, 08:52

I can see the T-X be the next F-5 that we use to help out allied nations around the world with.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2166
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post29 Sep 2018, 11:01

KamenRiderBlade wrote:I can see the T-X be the next F-5 that we use to help out allied nations around the world with.


I think the T/A and F/A-50s have that base covered
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2620
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post29 Sep 2018, 12:05

rheonomic wrote:
thepointblank wrote:
sferrin wrote:I'm surprised at this. It was Lockheed's to lose. T-50s are in production right now. I wonder how many delays and cost increases we'll see in this as Boeing tries to figure it out. (It's probably a tad more difficult than making a 767 into a tanker when they'd already done that before.)

I'm reading Boeing is assuming almost ALL of the risk in their offering; they offered a fixed-price contract. If Boeing blows the budget, they could be out millions, even billions. Risky for sure, for Boeing.


Boeing also makes a lot of money on the commercial side, which allows them to bid more aggressively than LM or NG can usually.


This.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2166
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post29 Sep 2018, 14:45

rheonomic wrote:Boeing also makes a lot of money on the commercial side, which allows them to bid more aggressively than LM or NG can usually.

Wonder if Boeing can use this to their advantage in the future.
If they can offer their PCA candidate at a fixed price then that gives them a massive advantage against the competition.

Unlike Lockheed and Northrop, they don't need to maximize profits as much as they make so much from their commercial contracts as well. Minimum profit is better than no profit after all.
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 646
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post30 Sep 2018, 05:50

zero-one wrote:Wonder if Boeing can use this to their advantage in the future.
If they can offer their PCA candidate at a fixed price then that gives them a massive advantage against the competition.

Unlike Lockheed and Northrop, they don't need to maximize profits as much as they make so much from their commercial contracts as well. Minimum profit is better than no profit after all.


They’ve gone 3 for 3 with this approach on the last few major acquisitions. Be interesting to see how sustainable this is long term.
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Offline

boilermaker

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 76
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015, 18:12

Unread post30 Sep 2018, 07:28

KamenRiderBlade wrote:I can see the T-X be the next F-5 that we use to help out allied nations around the world with.

It seems to be very light and with a thrust to weight ratio of 2-1. Imagine a F16 with 2 GE engines...
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2166
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post30 Sep 2018, 08:34

boilermaker wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:I can see the T-X be the next F-5 that we use to help out allied nations around the world with.

It seems to be very light and with a thrust to weight ratio of 2-1. Imagine a F16 with 2 GE engines...


People, we already have that. Its called the F/A-50 or T/A-50 if you're a bit tighter on the wallet, Tejas if thats your fancy, No, what about the Hawk 200. Competition you ask? Theres the JF-17 from China and Yak-130 from Russia. The Grippen C is also somewhere in that category.

Honestly the F-16 already filled the low cost, lightweight fighter category when it came out. However it's become so much better over the years and a tad bit more expensive.

Plus the fact that the US, the economic titan that she is doesn't necessarily translate "low cost" like the rest of us. the F-16C is considered cheap over there, but for developing countries, thats still a bit too pricey. Thus the F/A-50 and the like fills in a new category.
-The glorified trainer
-Trainer jet on steroids
-Trainer with a gun
-Cheaper than cheap low cost fighters
-Entry level MRFs

Point is, Boeing doesn't need to develop this into another one of those if there are no buyers and judging by the F/A-50s exports so far. I don't think they will. Don't get me wrong the T-50 line is doing okay, but not good enough in my opinion for Boeing to notice.
Offline

talkitron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 410
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post30 Sep 2018, 23:33

zero-one wrote:Point is, Boeing doesn't need to develop this into another one of those if there are no buyers and judging by the F/A-50s exports so far. I don't think they will. Don't get me wrong the T-50 line is doing okay, but not good enough in my opinion for Boeing to notice.


Whether Boeing is planning to enter this market or not is not something anyone here knows. The defense business seems to involve chasing a lot of lower volume contracts and I am sure Boeing knows how to do that.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5641
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post01 Oct 2018, 00:49

The Boeing T-X will not become another fighter like the F-5. As Stealth is now part of the game....



That said, it should have good prospects in the export market.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1209
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post01 Oct 2018, 01:00

With its very high thrust to weight ratio it would be quite an energy handful in close maneuvering, perhaps they can add a few to the aggressor squadrons to supplement the F-16s.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests