T-X Requirements Released

moo · 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?

Dutchy · 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. ;-)

Dutchy · Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:42 am

When will the winner be announced?

seahawk · 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.

Dutchy · 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.

mmo · 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

Dutchy · Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:31 pm

Ok, thanks, we'll have to wait for a bit longer.

himself · 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 · 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.

Dutchy · Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:44 pm

When will it be announced? In the spring or will it delayed again?

mmo · 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.

keesje · 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.

Ozair · 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.

keesje · Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:53 am

Any updates?

rlwynn · Tue May 01, 2018 4:31 pm

https://saabgroup.com/media/news-press/ ... -aircraft/

Ozair · 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.

himself · 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

keesje · Wed May 16, 2018 2:05 pm

Taking everything into account, probably the favorite.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85PgkMW_F1o&list=UURcDxIgXwpSQGF-9ctjOu6g&index=295

SAS A340 · Thu May 17, 2018 5:57 am

Nice but short video

I could really see these as our (swedish) new trainer too. :bigthumbsup:

n75jyv · 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.

Slug71 · 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.

Dutchy · 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.

Dutchy · 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?

INFINITI329 · 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?

Dutchy · 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.

INFINITI329 · 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 · 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

Dutchy · 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.

Slug71 · 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 · 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.

Slug71 · 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.

Ozair · Sun Aug 19, 2018 11:41 am

If LM/KAI have just submitted their final bid then it is very likely we won't have a decision on the T-X selection for at least a couple of months. The article identifies 30th September but that seems very quick for the tender to come to a decision.

Lockheed-KAI consortium submits final offer for US jet bid

A consortium of Lockheed Martin and Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) submitted a proposal Thursday to bid on a $16 billion (18 trillion won) jet project by the United States Air Force.

"Lockheed Martin submitted its final proposal at 3:35 p.m. on Wednesday (local time) to the U.S. Air Force. Nothing specific has been confirmed over the upcoming schedules regarding the bid," the Korean aircraft manufacturer said.

The project is aimed at replacing the U.S. Air Force's outdated pilot training jets, T-38Cs, with new aircraft. The T-50A jet trainer from the Lockheed-KAI consortium is competing against BTX-1 of the Boeing-Saab consortium.

KAI hopes to win the bid as it will help the company widen its global presence at a time when the company is seeking to expand business into new territories. In recent years, the company has gone all-out to sell its Surion helicopters to other countries, as part of its efforts to become a top-tier aircraft and aerospace parts manufacturer.

No details have been unveiled about the specific profit-sharing between Lockheed Martin and KAI, but the latest bid is expected to become a golden opportunity for KAI to win more orders from the U.S. military and others overseas.

"We are pinning our hopes on winning the bid," an official from the company said. "As the consortium submitted its best and final offer to the U.S. Air Force, we only have to wait for the final decision."

It remains unknown when the U.S. Air Force will make its final decision, but expectations are that the U.S. government can decide on the final bidder before the end of its 2018 fiscal year on Sept. 30.

The Lockheed-KAI consortium believes the latest bid will help expand its sales channels and serve as momentum to win orders for thousands of more T-50A jets in countries other than the U.S.

If the consortium wins the ongoing bid, it will supply 350 T-50A aircraft to the U.S. military. The T-50A advanced trainer ― co-developed by KAI and Lockheed Martin ― is an updated version of the T-50 supersonic jet. KAI has decade-long knowhow in manufacturing the T-50 jet, and has exported the aircraft to major Asian markets ― such as the Philippines.

"By winning the bid, our global drive will gain further momentum and help us expand our revenue stream in a more stable way," said a company official.

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation ... 53990.html

Dutchy · Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:31 pm

Ozair wrote:
If LM/KAI have just submitted their final bid then it is very likely we won't have a decision on the T-X selection for at least a couple of months. The article identifies 30th September but that seems very quick for the tender to come to a decision.

Lockheed-KAI consortium submits final offer for US jet bid

A consortium of Lockheed Martin and Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) submitted a proposal Thursday to bid on a $16 billion (18 trillion won) jet project by the United States Air Force.

"Lockheed Martin submitted its final proposal at 3:35 p.m. on Wednesday (local time) to the U.S. Air Force. Nothing specific has been confirmed over the upcoming schedules regarding the bid," the Korean aircraft manufacturer said.

The project is aimed at replacing the U.S. Air Force's outdated pilot training jets, T-38Cs, with new aircraft. The T-50A jet trainer from the Lockheed-KAI consortium is competing against BTX-1 of the Boeing-Saab consortium.

KAI hopes to win the bid as it will help the company widen its global presence at a time when the company is seeking to expand business into new territories. In recent years, the company has gone all-out to sell its Surion helicopters to other countries, as part of its efforts to become a top-tier aircraft and aerospace parts manufacturer.

No details have been unveiled about the specific profit-sharing between Lockheed Martin and KAI, but the latest bid is expected to become a golden opportunity for KAI to win more orders from the U.S. military and others overseas.

"We are pinning our hopes on winning the bid," an official from the company said. "As the consortium submitted its best and final offer to the U.S. Air Force, we only have to wait for the final decision."

It remains unknown when the U.S. Air Force will make its final decision, but expectations are that the U.S. government can decide on the final bidder before the end of its 2018 fiscal year on Sept. 30.

The Lockheed-KAI consortium believes the latest bid will help expand its sales channels and serve as momentum to win orders for thousands of more T-50A jets in countries other than the U.S.

If the consortium wins the ongoing bid, it will supply 350 T-50A aircraft to the U.S. military. The T-50A advanced trainer ― co-developed by KAI and Lockheed Martin ― is an updated version of the T-50 supersonic jet. KAI has decade-long knowhow in manufacturing the T-50 jet, and has exported the aircraft to major Asian markets ― such as the Philippines.

"By winning the bid, our global drive will gain further momentum and help us expand our revenue stream in a more stable way," said a company official.

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation ... 53990.html

What happens if the decision will be made in the new fiscal year?

Ozair · Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:31 pm

Dutchy wrote:
What happens if the decision will be made in the new fiscal year?

Probably not that big an issue but it will likely depend on the funding available. When the decision comes it will probably not be a contract award but a preferred tender selection and final negotiation will commence so whichever vendor is chosen will sign a contract next financial year anyway.

trpmb6 · Mon Aug 20, 2018 1:34 pm

Here is a fairly lengthy article detailing the three different proposals.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/419704 ... t-showdown

I'm not too familiar with the firm that put the details together so I can't speak to their credentials, but I found the information they provided to be correct to the best of my knowledge.

I believe funding was laid out in the latest defense authorization budget that was signed into law.

INFINITI329 · Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:37 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
Here is a fairly lengthy article detailing the three different proposals.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/419704 ... t-showdown

I'm not too familiar with the firm that put the details together so I can't speak to their credentials, but I found the information they provided to be correct to the best of my knowledge.

I believe funding was laid out in the latest defense authorization budget that was signed into law.

Good read, I always though Lockheed had the advantage this article confirms it for me, however, Boeing is not too far behind

Dutchy · Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:56 pm

Interesting article. Lockheed Martin will probably have the low-risk offer and probably be cheaper than the Boeing to produce because LM does not have to factor in all of the development cost, Boeing has too to break even. The Leonardo is probably not really being considered, even if it meets all the requirements if it does, then it should be the cheapest to buy and operate by a long shot.

I am rooting for Boeing though, should be a marvelous aircraft and on a side note, it will keep Boeing into the fighter business - kind of. That last remark probably has no weight into the decision the Air Force has to take, but, I think, for a nation, it should otherwise America will be too reliant on Lockheed Martin.

Ozair · Tue Sep 04, 2018 10:32 pm

Another source indicating a 30th of September contract award for T-X.

https://www.defensenews.com/newsletters/tv-next-episode/2018/09/04/t-x-decision-imminent/

With Boeing winning the MQ-25 bid it will be interesting to see which way this goes. Boeing could get a clean sweep and lock away a lot of business if they win. Alternatively if LM win they will have pole position on the USAF fighter fleet for a long time to come.

keesje · Wed Sep 05, 2018 9:17 am

Strategically it would IMO be best to leave out Leonardo, foreign (russian design :yuck:

) although in terms of specs risks maybe the best. LM T-X is a Korean aircraft really having some succes in Asia.

The Boeing design IMO is most uncompromized geared towards the requirements and would keep Boeing relevant in the fighter market, preventing LM from getting even more dominant. I see the chances for Boeing better than 50%, they have a strong lobby too & probably most American jobs.

Ozair · Wed Sep 05, 2018 11:58 am

keesje wrote:
Strategically it would IMO be best to leave out Leonardo, foreign (russian design ) although in terms of specs risks maybe the best.

Have you looked at the specs? The M-346 is the least likely of the three to meet the spec and this is evidenced by the inability to find a viable US partner.

keesje wrote:
LM T-X is a Korean aircraft really having some succes in Asia.

The Boeing design IMO is most uncompromized geared towards the requirements and would keep Boeing relevant in the fighter market, preventing LM from getting even more dominant. I see the chances for Boeing better than 50%, they have a strong lobby too & probably most American jobs.

Who wins more business isn't a criteria for the selection, the most capable platform at the most economic price is. As for which is better, we will hopefully see that at the end of the month.

keesje · Wed Sep 05, 2018 1:40 pm

Ozair wrote:
Who wins more business isn't a criteria for the selection, the most capable platform at the most economic price is. As for which is better, we will hopefully see that at the end of the month.

This competition is probably very political driven. Very. They'll adjust the definitions / weights of "most capable platform" & "most economic" for it, again.

Revelation · Wed Sep 05, 2018 2:41 pm

keesje wrote:
This competition is probably very political driven. Very. They'll adjust the definitions / weights of "most capable platform" & "most economic" for it, again.

Every large government contract has a political element. US purchasing rules are very well defined. Sorry if some of the outcomes upset you. Maybe worry less about it?

Dutchy · Wed Sep 05, 2018 8:28 pm

keesje wrote:
Strategically it would IMO be best to leave out Leonardo, foreign (russian design )

The Leonardo design is quite different from the Yakovlev Yak-130. I see the Leonardo M-346 Master as a second cousin to the Yak-130 only.

Ozair · Wed Sep 05, 2018 10:40 pm

keesje wrote:
This competition is probably very political driven. Very. They'll adjust the definitions / weights of "most capable platform" & "most economic" for it, again.

Well there is no evidence to believe that, for starters the three contenders all have foreign partners, Saab with Boeing, KAI with LM and Leonardo with Leonardo DRS so there isn’t a clear winner on who is more American.

As for your claim of adjustment, that is completely false. The requirements have been frozen for a long time. The team that will assess them won’t get together and all collude to get Boeing or LM the win. Do you honestly think that happens and people keep that secret…

It will come down to an evaluation of the platform, its capabilities, cost and the associated simulation offerings. That result will be passed up the chain and at some point additional information will be considered with the proposal, such as the past performance of the contractor, and that is where some subjectivity may enter the process. Every single decision maker in this process has to know there is a good chance of a protest to the GAO and if that happens the scrutiny on each of those subjective decisions will be immense. That is a healthy amount of oversight IMO and will end up in the best of the three solutions receiving the contract.

Slug71 · Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:11 am

I'm hoping Boeing/SAAB win, but I'm not sure this is likely after Boeing just getting the MQ-25.

Dutchy · Thu Sep 06, 2018 9:41 am

Slug71 wrote:
I'm hoping Boeing/SAAB win, but I'm not sure this is likely after Boeing just getting the MQ-25.

Second that.

RJMAZ · Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:39 am

Boeing will win easily.

We consider fighter aircraft as 4th gen and 5th generation etc.

The design, development and testing can also be measured in similar generations. The Boeing trainer is the only one to use the latest generation of digital design. The Boeing 797 will probably be the first airliner to be designed using it. The main benefit is thatbthe trainer was designed in a fraction of the time and no prototypes are required. It will have fewer parts and significantly less labour to assemble. This gives Boeing a massive advantage. The Boeing design would actually be much lower risk for this reason.

Dutchy · Thu Sep 06, 2018 7:16 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Boeing will win easily.

We consider fighter aircraft as 4th gen and 5th generation etc.

The design, development and testing can also be measured in similar generations. The Boeing trainer is the only one to use the latest generation of digital design. The Boeing 797 will probably be the first airliner to be designed using it. The main benefit is that the trainer was designed in a fraction of the time and no prototypes are required. It will have fewer parts and significantly less labour to assemble. This gives Boeing a massive advantage. The Boeing design would actually be much lower risk for this reason.

Interesting, do you have more info on this new digital design process? I guess more can be tested in the virtual world, stress on certain parts and that's why it can be designed more precisely? Does that have a potential cost-saving effect for production?

Do you feel this is less risk then a/c which are already in production an thus have real-life experience?

RJMAZ · Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:26 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Interesting, do you have more info on this new digital design process? I guess more can be tested in the virtual world, stress on certain parts and that's why it can be designed more precisely? Does that have a potential cost-saving effect for production?

Do you feel this is less risk then a/c which are already in production an thus have real-life experience?

The new design software allows you to design in parallel. 100 parts can be open on 100 different computers at once with 100 engineers working on it simultaneously. The complex design gets updated in real time.

Previously computer design you could open up a single part, build it, shape it and save it. Effectively designing in series. You would have to break the big design up into sections to get different teams working in parallel on it, but each big section would still get built in series. But then you get the A380 where the two sections didnt fit together. High risk.

Also this new design software with the design coming together in real time can be digitally tested for load. Fatigue testing in the digital world. Previously you could only optimising the individual parts for weight but now you could optimise the full combined structure. Real world result, lower weight, longer life, less repair work and design fixes to restore fatigue life.

Fluid dynamic guys can also be digital wind tunnel testing the design. You want 9G and high alpha? You got it. No real flight testing, no prototyping, you'll turn like an F-35 with the very first production ready aircraft off the line.

Then you have stealth. Planform alignment the design with a click of a button. So all doors and panel join lines you can simply have a snap to function at a certain angle. Test the radar cross section in the digital world.

Slug71 · Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:40 am

[quote="RJMAZ"]Boeing will win easily.

We consider fighter aircraft as 4th gen and 5th generation etc.

The design, development and testing can also be measured in similar generations. The Boeing trainer is the only one to use the latest generation of digital design. The Boeing 797 will probably be the first airliner to be designed using it. The main benefit is thatbthe trainer was designed in a fraction of the time and no prototypes are required. It will have fewer parts and significantly less labour to assemble. This gives Boeing a massive advantage. The Boeing design would actually be much lower risk for this reason.[/quote]

You don't think this will upset Lockheed and/or GA, and cause protests and possibly a new competition? (Since Boeing already has the KC-46, P-8, and now the MQ-25) Boeing also, at least for now, has the F/A-18e/f/g and F-15E (and newer variants) and will also more than likely get the E-6 and E-4B replacement, as well as the E-3 and E-8 replacement.

Then again, Lockheed does have the F-35 which will be produced in much higher numbers than all the above combined.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net