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/Saab TX takes first flight

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Not very controversial, but it could be said that in the post Obama/Bush years this aircraft has a good chance at winning the title. Whatever the flyoff results will be, it is a good show that Boeing and Saab got this bird flying within 12 months of the firm design...

www.defensenews.com...

I wonder if it will have a bit of CAS in mind as well? Wouldn't be able to replace the a-10, but it looks good enough to be in the a-7 range in arms.




posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

The T-X is supposed to have a light attack, and adversarial role.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I wasn't aware of that. I thought it was t-38 replacement only. what are the USAF's needs in this requirement other than training?



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fools
a reply to: Zaphod58

I wasn't aware of that. I thought it was t-38 replacement only. what are the USAF's needs in this requirement other than training?


Light attack is a great way to apply back up ground pressure. If used in the correct tactical format it could only increase a ground game. I agree that it cannot replace the sheer power of an A 10, but more maneuverability is not really a problem either.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

The two big missions are going to be Red Air, and trainer, but they want to have more options open if they need to use them. They're planning on buying something like 350 aircraft, and with them being required to have an in flight refueling capability this time, they can actually deploy them to bases the T-38 can't get to to do training, or even use them in a COIN role.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

wouldn't it be cheaper to do the coin with a new Bronco or maybe a Scorpian? Ok I know it would be cheaper. So a question for you, would a new Bronco or Scorpian be better at COIN than any of the TX variants in consideration?



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   
nother thing, doesnt matter to the reality, but man is that a pretty bird



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

Yes and no. Cost wise, no. They're already buying the T-X so it won't require more R&D or development. An OV-10 type platform, such as the AT-6 or A-29 are outstanding COIN platforms, but these will be good at it too, while being cheaper to buy, and offering more flexibility.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So since you seem to be in the know more than most, what are Boeing's chances in this endeavor?

I mean I know there hasn't been a flyoff, so that question is sort of difficult.

So which aircraft seems more capable? Which aircraft is gathering more political support ( i hate thinking that)? Which aircraft can evolve with technology better?



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

It's an interesting mix. Raytheon/Leonardo, Lockheed/KAI are offering proven designs with relatively minor changes (significant changes engineering wise). Boeing/SAAB, Northrop, Sierra Nevada/TAI are offering clean sheet designs, all of which have now flown. And Textron is still thinking about throwing in.

Prior to the Qatar/Kuwait deals going through, I would have said Boeing was pretty much a lock, to preserve their St Louis production line until F-XX/F/A-XX are bid. Now, it's a toss up. Lockheed will have production challenges getting their site in South Carolina ramped up. So will Raytheon in Mississippi.

Depending on more data on the clean sheet designs, I like the T-50A from Lockheed/KAI. It's mature, reliable, and well liked by the people that operate the T-50 version of it. And it has a fighter/attack version already, so won't need additional work to add that in.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I swear you must work for Lockheed. :-)



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

It's probably going to boil down to the T-50A, or the T-100. The T-100 is based on the M-346 Master. Israel is the largest current operator with 30, followed by Singapore with 12. There aren't many existing orders for them. They've worked on giving them a ground attack ability, but as far as I know, haven't yet.

The T-50A is based of the T-50, which includes the F and F/A-50. It already has both a fighter, and a ground attack role incorporated. Korea has 102 aircraft, with more on order. Iraq, the Philippines, Thailand all have orders in place for them, with others interested.

I'd really like to see Boeing get it. I like their aircraft, but Lockheed and KAI have the advantage of starting from, by far, the most mature and well established airframe of all, which will play a big role in helping with costs. The other two haven't released much about their aircraft beyond "they've flown", but Sierra Nevada are gambling on being more efficient than maneuverable, like the others are.
edit on 12/23/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

NG has an awesome mystery plane as well, likely with some advanced tech of its own. They can't be discounted. They know more about the day to day requirements of a trainer than anyone.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Caughtlurking

I'm not discounting anyone. But when it comes to the hard numbers the Pentagon is going to want, when it comes to the bidding, the T-50A and the T-100 have the advantage of having aircraft that have been flying long enough to have a good solid idea of what costs are going to be. A clean sheet design won't have that behind it, so will be at a slight disadvantage.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I don't think that the DoD will care about foreign operating costs. Practically everything that isn't made in the US will have to be made in the US for those existing aircraft. They'll still have to demonstrate that they can open the new lines here. As long as the other fresh design competitors can demonstrate the right operating costs are possible then I don't think they'll be at a disadvantage. The T-50 is a good aircraft and can be called a poor man's F-16 but anything based off the 346 matter is going to have trouble meeting requirements the same way a hawk based entry would.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: bra1nwash

Foreign costs will give a baseline that the US can expect to see when they are operating the same aircraft. It also gives them an idea of the kind of maintenance issues they can expect to see, etc. They will most certainly play a role. They might not be the deciding factor, but they will definitely be important in the final analysis.

As for building in the US, final assembly plants are already being opened, or selected. Both the Sierra Nevada and Lockheed teams have their assembly plants up and running. SN built their aircraft at their Colorado facility, while Lockheed has had two T-50As in Greenville, SC where they spent months taking one apart and rebuilding it to give their workers experience, and now are flying around the area testing the aircraft. Raytheon has selected Mississippi for their final assembly, but they haven't opened the plant yet.




top topics



 
1

log in

join