User avatar
moo
Posts: 4728
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:59 am

Dutchy wrote:
most probably the last things because why would you go to the trouble (and expense) of building a prototype and not enter? Excessive risk doesn't cut it with me, sounds like an excuse.


The sunk cost fallacy disagrees with you - the prototype has already been built, going forward in the competition will only cost more money regardless, so do you save that money or not?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 5994
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:41 am

moo wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
most probably the last things because why would you go to the trouble (and expense) of building a prototype and not enter? Excessive risk doesn't cut it with me, sounds like an excuse.


The sunk cost fallacy disagrees with you - the prototype has already been built, going forward in the competition will only cost more money regardless, so do you save that money or not?


Sunk cost are gone, so plays no factor in this. So at that point, they made a decision not to enter, regardless. So the cost associated with upgrading it does not offset the risk of not getting the contract. ;-)
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 5994
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:42 am

When will the winner be announced?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6901
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:57 am

Dutchy wrote:
most probably the last things because why would you go to the trouble (and expense) of building a prototype and not enter? Excessive risk doesn't cut it with me, sounds like an excuse.


More or less both. If the first design is not perfect, you must invest more money to fix the problems, while the likelihood of winning the tender has not improved, so the overall cost to benefit risk becomes worse.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 5994
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:00 am

yes, excessive risk to them, not excessive risk posed by the program as a whole, so internal factors not external.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
mmo
Topic Author
Posts: 1526
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:12 am

Dutchy wrote:
When will the winner be announced?


It would appear the award has slipped from the end of this year to Spring 2018.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/10 ... %20Roundup
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 5994
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:31 pm

Ok, thanks, we'll have to wait for a bit longer.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
himself
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:02 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:29 am

mmo wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
When will the winner be announced?


It would appear the award has slipped from the end of this year to Spring 2018.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/10 ... %20Roundup


I remember reading recently, cannot find the article now, that the USAF could announce the winner before they award the contract award, in order to let the losing firms release their engineers to other projects. So, we could hear who wins in December, and the contract comes in the Spring.
 
Ozair
Posts: 2626
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:40 pm

CEO OF ITALY’S LEONARDO IN ISRAEL TO WOO U.S. AIR FORCE

With the US Air Force’s hunt for a next-generation military trainer aircraft narrowed down to three top contenders, the CEO of one of them – Leonardo, Italy’s largest defense company – was in Israel this week meeting with key partners of Israel’s defense establishment.

Last March, Leonardo submitted its bid for the United States Air Force’s T-X advanced jet-trainer program, which aims to replace the aging T-38 Talon aircraft from the 1960s. It is up against Lockheed Martin’s T-50A and a new Boeing program designed specifically for the tender.

While Leonardo is the underdog in the tender for its T-100 program, the company believes that the experience of the Israel Air Force will give it a leg up against the US defense giants.

Leonardo’s T-100 is a derivative of the M-346 Master advanced jet trainer and is used by the air forces of Italy, Singapore, Poland and Israel where it known as the Lavi. IAF has a fleet of 30 Lavi with four simulators which entered into service in 2014.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/CEO-of ... rce-533574

Little being released in the media at the moment on the T-X but looks like lots of lobbying occurring in the background.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 5994
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:44 pm

When will it be announced? In the spring or will it delayed again?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
mmo
Topic Author
Posts: 1526
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:29 pm

The last I read, most people expect the announcement will be made in March. It really depends on what happens with funding. If the budget is funded, then expect to have an announcement in March with production to begin fairly quickly.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11313
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:31 am

Looking at the current political climate in the US, Boeing loosing ground in Defense and the fact the T-X is a clean sheet design tailored to the requirements, it seems Boeing T-X will be hard to beat.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Ozair
Posts: 2626
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:26 am

keesje wrote:
Looking at the current political climate in the US, Boeing loosing ground in Defense and the fact the T-X is a clean sheet design tailored to the requirements, it seems Boeing T-X will be hard to beat.

Perhaps. The Boeing SAAB design probably has the highest risk of the current candidates but also likely the most potential.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11313
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:53 am

Any updates?

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
rlwynn
Posts: 1282
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 3:35 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Tue May 01, 2018 4:31 pm

I can drive faster than you
 
Ozair
Posts: 2626
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Tue May 01, 2018 11:50 pm

rlwynn wrote:
https://saabgroup.com/media/news-press/news/2017-09/saab-offers-u.s.-based-production-capability-for-t-x-trainer-aircraft/

That report is from September 2017 so there isn't any new information included there we haven't already discussed.
 
User avatar
himself
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:02 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Wed May 09, 2018 11:29 pm

Article from December 2017 says the USAF pushed the decision to July.
https://insidedefense.com/insider/boein ... -amendment
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11313
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Wed May 16, 2018 2:05 pm

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
SAS A340
Posts: 802
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 5:59 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Thu May 17, 2018 5:57 am

Nice but short video :) I could really see these as our (swedish) new trainer too. :bigthumbsup:
It's not what u do,it's how u do it!
 
n75jyv
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2013 10:36 pm

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Fri Jul 13, 2018 1:27 am

We are nearing mid-July. Are we going to see a contract award? As an ex-St Louisan (and Scandinavian), I’d love to see Boeing/SAAB get this (cooler looking craft than either of the competitors).

The Lockheed/Korean bid looks old school F16, but with the Korean efforts by Trump it seems like it has an edge. Given that the other contestant is approximately a Yak-130, I wonder if it can win.

My two cents.
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Fri Jul 13, 2018 4:29 am

n75jyv wrote:
We are nearing mid-July. Are we going to see a contract award? As an ex-St Louisan (and Scandinavian), I’d love to see Boeing/SAAB get this (cooler looking craft than either of the competitors).

The Lockheed/Korean bid looks old school F16, but with the Korean efforts by Trump it seems like it has an edge. Given that the other contestant is approximately a Yak-130, I wonder if it can win.

My two cents.


Hopefully. I think the Boeing/SAAB offering will get it IMO. It would make a good replacement for the T-45 too.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 5994
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Fri Jul 13, 2018 6:22 am

n75jyv wrote:
We are nearing mid-July. Are we going to see a contract award? As an ex-St Louisan (and Scandinavian), I’d love to see Boeing/SAAB get this (cooler looking craft than either of the competitors).

The Lockheed/Korean bid looks old school F16, but with the Korean efforts by Trump it seems like it has an edge. Given that the other contestant is approximately a Yak-130, I wonder if it can win.

My two cents.


Does Trump have an influence on the selection process? I think it should be transparent process otherwise you will be in courts for the next two years and it can start all over again.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 5994
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Fri Jul 13, 2018 6:24 am

Slug71 wrote:
n75jyv wrote:
We are nearing mid-July. Are we going to see a contract award? As an ex-St Louisan (and Scandinavian), I’d love to see Boeing/SAAB get this (cooler looking craft than either of the competitors).

The Lockheed/Korean bid looks old school F16, but with the Korean efforts by Trump it seems like it has an edge. Given that the other contestant is approximately a Yak-130, I wonder if it can win.

My two cents.


Hopefully. I think the Boeing/SAAB offering will get it IMO. It would make a good replacement for the T-45 too.


Will they offer a carrier capable? Are the T-45 Goshawk up for replacement?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Fri Jul 13, 2018 6:53 am

Dutchy wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
n75jyv wrote:
We are nearing mid-July. Are we going to see a contract award? As an ex-St Louisan (and Scandinavian), I’d love to see Boeing/SAAB get this (cooler looking craft than either of the competitors).

The Lockheed/Korean bid looks old school F16, but with the Korean efforts by Trump it seems like it has an edge. Given that the other contestant is approximately a Yak-130, I wonder if it can win.

My two cents.


Hopefully. I think the Boeing/SAAB offering will get it IMO. It would make a good replacement for the T-45 too.


Will they offer a carrier capable? Are the T-45 Goshawk up for replacement?


it would be smart for all teams should dangle that bone.(same basic frame two different uses) I believe the USN is involved in the t-x program. When will the T-45 be up for replacement?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 5994
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:21 am

INFINITI329 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Slug71 wrote:

Hopefully. I think the Boeing/SAAB offering will get it IMO. It would make a good replacement for the T-45 too.


Will they offer a carrier capable? Are the T-45 Goshawk up for replacement?


it would be smart all teams should dangle that bone. I believe the USN is involved in the t-x program. When will the T-45 be up for replacement?


My two cents: making it carrier capable will be quite a feat and will alter the requirements quite a bit. It might hurt the T-X contender in this process.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:56 am

Dutchy wrote:
My two cents: making it carrier capable will be quite a feat and will alter the requirements quite a bit. It might hurt the T-X contender in this process.


I think it can be done. The variants would be tailored to the respective service just like the F-35 is. This reduces the cost for the government and it saves money in the long run. It would be the after the contract is awarded to late to ask for it now.
 
mmo
Topic Author
Posts: 1526
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Fri Jul 13, 2018 11:04 am

INFINITI329 wrote:

it would be smart for all teams should dangle that bone.(same basic frame two different uses) I believe the USN is involved in the t-x program. When will the T-45 be up for replacement?


The USN is not involved in the USAF T-x selection process. Making it carrier capable makes it heavier which would have a detrimental effect on the T-X performance. To he honest the comments about saving money I don't think that would be applicable in this case. Reminds me of the F-111
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 5994
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Fri Jul 13, 2018 11:50 am

mmo wrote:
INFINITI329 wrote:

it would be smart for all teams should dangle that bone.(same basic frame two different uses) I believe the USN is involved in the t-x program. When will the T-45 be up for replacement?


The USN is not involved in the USAF T-x selection process. Making it carrier capable makes it heavier which would have a detrimental effect on the T-X performance. To he honest the comments about saving money I don't think that would be applicable in this case. Reminds me of the F-111


Or even the F-35. All variants would have been better if they were tailor-made for their service, there is a lot of compromise in each variant and surprisingly a lot of "specials" for each of the variants. And cheaper remains to be seen, the only variant whom truly benefits from this, as far as I can see, is the F-35B, I don't think the Harrier successor would have been made at all, if it weren't for the F-35 project.

Or more relevant to this, the BAe Hawk.

BAe Hawk Mk. 128 | Boeing T-45 Goshawk
Wing area: 16.70 m2 (179.64 ft2) | 190.1 ft2 (17.7 m2)
Empty weight: 4,480 kg (9,880 lb) | 10,403 lb (4,460 kg)
Useful load: 3,000 kg (6,600 lb) | nn
Max takeoff weight: 9,100 kg (20,000 lb) | 14,081 lb (6,387 kg)
Maximum speed: Mach 0.84 (1,028 km/h, 638 mph) | 560 knots, (645 mph, 1,038 km/h)
Range: 2,520 km (1,360 nmi, 1,565 mi) | 700 nmi (805 mi, 1288 km)
Service ceiling: 13,565 m (44,500 ft) | 42,500 ft (12,950 m)
Rate of climb: 47 m/s (9,300 ft/min) | 8,000 ft/min (40.6 m/s)
Thrust/weight: 0.65 | nn

As expected, the T-45 takes a hit being navy-lized. Most probably that the winner of the T-X program will have a Navy trainer version in ten years or so.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Fri Jul 13, 2018 3:32 pm

Dutchy wrote:
INFINITI329 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Will they offer a carrier capable? Are the T-45 Goshawk up for replacement?


it would be smart all teams should dangle that bone. I believe the USN is involved in the t-x program. When will the T-45 be up for replacement?


My two cents: making it carrier capable will be quite a feat and will alter the requirements quite a bit. It might hurt the T-X contender in this process.


mmo wrote:
INFINITI329 wrote:

it would be smart for all teams should dangle that bone.(same basic frame two different uses) I believe the USN is involved in the t-x program. When will the T-45 be up for replacement?


The USN is not involved in the USAF T-x selection process. Making it carrier capable makes it heavier which would have a detrimental effect on the T-X performance. To he honest the comments about saving money I don't think that would be applicable in this case. Reminds me of the F-111


A carrier variant would be a follow-on variant after the T-X selection. It would need the additional strengthening, in addition to the refueling change from receptacle to nozzle and any other navy requirements. The T-45 is expected to be in service for at least another 10 years (2035+), making it 37+ years old. Any other frame that could be selected would have to go through the same modification process or be a clean sheet which will be more expensive. The Boeing T-X would be well matured by then and upgrades could be introduced that can be back ported into the USAF T-X.
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2204
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:14 pm

e. Can your aircraft be modified for use by the US Navy for Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) and Carrier Qualification (CQ)? If so, what are the challenges and potential cost impacts? Note: Projected RDT&E and production costs are addressed in Para D.
f. How much commonality could be attained between an Air Force variant and a Navy variant?

2) Ground based training – provide this information for a USAF (non-carrier), USN (carrier) and Fighter/Attack variant (if this information is available) – address each platform separately.


Straight from the USAF Technical Questions RFI document. Questions related to a Navy variant appear various times throughout the document. So yes, the Navy is involved but probably in a minor role. They are probably in an advisory role and not defining requirements.
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:22 am

INFINITI329 wrote:
e. Can your aircraft be modified for use by the US Navy for Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) and Carrier Qualification (CQ)? If so, what are the challenges and potential cost impacts? Note: Projected RDT&E and production costs are addressed in Para D.
f. How much commonality could be attained between an Air Force variant and a Navy variant?

2) Ground based training – provide this information for a USAF (non-carrier), USN (carrier) and Fighter/Attack variant (if this information is available) – address each platform separately.


Straight from the USAF Technical Questions RFI document. Questions related to a Navy variant appear various times throughout the document. So yes, the Navy is involved but probably in a minor role. They are probably in an advisory role and not defining requirements.


Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.
SAAB would probably be happy if the Navy bought it too, since they want/wanted(?) a naval variant of the Gripen. There'd be something to learn from Boeing in that department, whether it be for the Gripen or BAE colab for their next gen fighter.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos