It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Boeing Defense to unveil T-X trainer in St. Louis on Sept. 13

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Or a Horppen.




posted on May, 15 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Boeing has confirmed what we all knew already. If they win the T-X program, the aircraft will be assembled in St Louis.

boeing.mediaroom.com...



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I get the idea of using pre-exisiting/operational components to keep costs down, but why on earth, would the Air Force need carrier capable landing gear. Seems like a huge waste of metal/weight for little, to no, benefit.

Put the F-15 gear on that.

And they should be able to bang out a trainer design in mere months. There is no requirement to develop new tech for that, so it should basically be a 4th Gen aircraft with great rear cockpit visibility.

That being said. Looks pretty good and I'd love to teach in it. Way cooler looking that the Goshawk.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: cosmania

They need something that blends 4th and 5th gen. The cockpit uses the giant MFDs that they'll find in 5th gen, and fuses the limited sensors that they have installed. It will help with the transition from training aircraft, into the 5th gen, since there are no two seat versions.

Carrier gear helps with the lousy landings. Heh.
edit on 5/15/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Sweden has stated they would buy the T-X if Boeing won.

I wonder why…


alert5.com...



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Because then the unit cost will be much lower. If they buy the T-X and USAF does not, then Boeing would likely have to recoup the development costs through Sweden instead of the US.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: cosmania

And Saab helps build it has nothing to do with that?



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Surprisingly little actually. It'll help get the costs down, but the big thing is the US eating the development cost. The others would be too expensive for them because they'd be built elsewhere and shipped to them, which increases the cost somewhat.



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

But they have also stated ONLY if Boeing wins they will buy the T-X.

The economies of scale work whether its Boeing or someone else.



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Because if Boeing wins, we pay the development, and SAAB assembles them there. They'll build something like 3/4ths of the aircraft in country. Since they'd already be building them to ship to Boeing, costs will be lower.

If they buy any of the others, even if it's our selection, they'll be built somewhere else for them, and even if they can get them built quickly, they have to pay delivery costs, which includes fuel for the tanker used to get them across the Atlantic, unless they're willing to wait until there's a tanker available going that way already that has the fuel load and cargo capacity to move them. Costs will be higher.



posted on May, 18 2017 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Hey Zaph is that any relation to the Black Diamond company based in California I think that provides technical solutions to building complex equipment?



posted on May, 18 2017 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: thebozeian

It seems to be the Boeing name for a new way of dealing with composite structures. It could be named for them, but there isn't much about it to be certain either way.



posted on May, 18 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   
How about simply merging T-X and LAAR.
Buy the M-346, build it in the US and be done with it.



posted on May, 18 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Because it might not be the best fit for them.



posted on May, 18 2017 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Does it have to be? They’ll never learn. The Air Force doesnt have to have the ‚best‘ jet trainer or light attack aircraft on earth, they somethings thats good enough and actually affordable.
Money for procurement is thight as it is and it wont get better with the F-35 and B-21 eating up the budget for the foreseeable future. And if congress gets around to passing an actually budget anytime soon …
I’d rather settle for a less than optimal trainer and safe money on the light attack front top before any other actually critical procurement program goes belly up due to he lack of funds.
But sure, have a nice little contest with what, half a dozens competitors at this point? That will end well. Lawsuits and cost overruns are a near certainty.



posted on May, 18 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

They need something that will be a lead in trainer and has in flight refueling. It's not about the best, it's about the best for the job. If all they needed was a trainer they could stick with the T-38 and avoid the cost altogether. But it doesn't do the job they need. And the M346 may not either.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join