T-X replacement for T-38

[telecat]

Looks as though it could be down to the Boeing and Lockheed entries on this one. Despite a build of over 350 aircraft and potential for more Northrop/BAE seem to be having cold feet, despite building a prototype, and Raytheon/Leonardo seem to thing the M246 won't cover the specs. the Hawk was due to be the Northrop entry but was dropped for the new build prototype.

[Eric Mc]

Those T-38s must be around 50 years old now.

[telecat]

The T-38 was slated for replacement in 2020. A couple of failures, including the loss of a T-38 and crew due to fatigue in 2008, was supposed to bring it forward to 2017.

The main stumbling block appears to be the performance is required to be beyond that for any previous Trainer with regards to sustained G and angle of attack. Hence Lockheed and Boeing taking new designs to the contest. It's unclear as to whether a twin engine is an advantage or not as well.

[Al Murphy]

I don't think BAE were having cold feet, however it looks like the decision is out of their hands anyway

http://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/nort...

Al

[telecat]

Seems to be a Northrop thing to me. They have the Bomber Tender and went a bit low on the development budget. I don't think they want to do the same again. BAE might not want to go alone in the US market although I don't see why an Updated Hawk couldn't. Especially as the Goshawk already has the Naval market.

[Gandahar]

This is quite an interesting thing, probably overshadowed of course in the political sphere by the F35. However it is still a lot of planes.

Summary

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/northro...


I think it is down to the following, as well as the mentioned above.

1. The USAF declared very high g force loadings for the plane from the offset to try and get the trainer up towards what modern day 4th generation and 5th can do.

2. Trump has not dealt with this deal yet but has already put twitter warning shots across the bow on Twitter to Boeing for the US presidents 747 -8 replacements and the F35.

Now the F35 can take a $600+m cost cut for the next tranch of planes as they cost so much to start off with, but if President Trump gets his way on that he might decide to apply the screws on the trainer. Which hasn't got so much lee-way per unit cost. Hence perhaps the cold feet. This is with the background of the Boeing new tanker fleet aircraft keep getting a few pay backs $$$ from Boeing on delays to the government.

Although the US arms side can be bloated I think the new trainer, especially if it was able to do low intensity strikes where a 5th generation fighter/bomber was overkill, should be allowed a bit of fat. At least until the US airforce goes nearly all unmanned.

Oh well, they have a choice of two, both pretty good. If they give it to Lockheed it might be because they want to put more screws on the F35, personally I hope they do not put it all in one basket and spread it to Boeing /Saab. That's just taking the cost / political side into it of course, not the merits of the two aircraft.

[Dr Jekyll]

telecat said:

Seems to be a Northrop thing to me. They have the Bomber Tender and went a bit low on the development budget. I don't think they want to do the same again. BAE might not want to go alone in the US market although I don't see why an Updated Hawk couldn't. Especially as the Goshawk already has the Naval market.

Replacing a 50 year old design with a 40 year old one though, twenty years ago it might have been a contender. It would have been interesting to see Hawks licence built by two different US companies.

[telecat]

Dr Jekyll said:

telecat said:

Seems to be a Northrop thing to me. They have the Bomber Tender and went a bit low on the development budget. I don't think they want to do the same again. BAE might not want to go alone in the US market although I don't see why an Updated Hawk couldn't. Especially as the Goshawk already has the Naval market.

Replacing a 50 year old design with a 40 year old one though, twenty years ago it might have been a contender. It would have been interesting to see Hawks licence built by two different US companies.

True, although most of The T-38's are 50 years old whereas Hawks have remained in production for 40 years with the initial design being improved. With the "glass" cockpit currently installed they do "fit" with 4th and 5th gen cockpit environments.

Having said all that the Boeing/Saab looks "right". It has elements of the Gripen I gather. The Kai T-50 is basically an F-16 so is a pretty good Platform as well. It does mean that many of the Platforms are based on older aircraft anyway. Still it's a good way to get a design together quickly. Providing they all do it properly and we don't end up with a Suepr Hornet debacle again.

Edited by telecat on Thursday 2nd February 14:36

[Dr Jekyll]

What non American designed aircraft have been bought by the US in significant numbers? Apart from WW1 types Canberra Harrier and Hawk are the only ones I can think of. Spitfire maybe.

[telecat]

Looks like Leonardo have decided to go alone with the M-346 So we are up to three confirmed bidders Also a new player Stavatti has put forward the Javelin as a contender. Based around the Sport Jet from the Nineties. Four now in the running.

[Eric Mc]

Dr Jekyll said:

What non American designed aircraft have been bought by the US in significant numbers? Apart from WW1 types Canberra Harrier and Hawk are the only ones I can think of. Spitfire maybe.

During WW2 they also operated Spitfires, Beaufighters and Mosquitoes - although in relatively small numbers compared to the totals built.

Although essentially a British design (inspired by a French concept), the Harrier was almost an American aircraft in some sense in that it was the enthusiasm of the US Marines that kept the project on track when neither the RAF or the Royal Navy were showing much interest.

[Dr Jekyll]

Eric Mc said:

Although essentially a British design (inspired by a French concept), the Harrier was almost an American aircraft in some sense in that it was the enthusiasm of the US Marines that kept the project on track when neither the RAF or the Royal Navy were showing much interest.

True, but then the P51 was almost a British aircraft.

[Eric Mc]

Sort of.

The British contingent went to North American to order Harvards and to negotiate a deal whereby NA would build Curtiss P-40s under licence for the RAF. It was NA who suggested that they could build a better plane than the P-40. The British commission said go ahead and try.

[Dr Jekyll]

Eric Mc said:

Sort of.

The British contingent went to North American to order Harvards and to negotiate a deal whereby NA would build Curtiss P-40s under licence for the RAF. It was NA who suggested that they could build a better plane than the P-40. The British commission said go ahead and try.

And it was a British idea to put a Merlin into it.

[Gandahar]

So we have one brand new entry from Boeing and Saab. Which is a pretty impressive duo.

And we have bids using adapted current planes which will be cheaper.

It will interesting to see how this goes......

[telecat]

Gandahar said:

So we have one brand new entry from Boeing and Saab. Which is a pretty impressive duo.

And we have bids using adapted current planes which will be cheaper.

It will interesting to see how this goes......

Looks like the Boeing Bid is to get a step in the door. Development costs are not covered by the Bid's conditions so it's a plain $ per aircraft deal. No incentives for better performance or ease of maintenance/airframe longevity. That means that Boeing will be after Trainer deals with other Air forces to fund it. Lockheed however in the KAI-50 have an off the shelf aircraft with the costs already dealt with. That's why Northrop and Raytheon dropped out. I would say that only the Hawk, M346 and KAI-50 really fit the brief on costs. The Boeing/SAAB aircraft is hoping to get in and get future orders.