Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest  
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4887 posts, RR: 1
Posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Flightglobal reports that Boeing is contemplating a completely new jet trainer as its entry for the planned USAF T-X competition. But with first delivery targeted for 2014 and IOC in 2017, would Boeing have enough time to develop a clean-sheet design?

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Dunn - Global Aviation Resource


http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...new-airframe-to-replace-t-38s.html

Quote:
"Boeing could propose developing a "purpose-built" airframe as one of several options to replace the US Air Force's fleet of Northrop T-38 jet trainers, say industry officials.

[.....]

According to industry officials, the Boeing concept pre-supposes that the USAF does not want to select a future trainer aircraft that was developed in a previous decade. The service plans to reach initial operational capability for the T-X fleet in 2017 and operate the type for 30-40 years.

Boeing's concept also may add a 'homegrown' dimension to a competition dominated by aircraft developed substantially in foreign countries."



The home turf advantage is real but timeframe is very tight. However, the potential order plus any subsequent navalised and light attack variants compel major manufacturers to have their own candidate, instead of just fronting for someone. Might Boeing have a design all ready for development, or would they settle for a sweeter partnership with Alenia?


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
74 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7395 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting DEVILFISH (Thread starter):
would Boeing have enough time to develop a clean-sheet design?

Not picking on you per se, but we see this all the time so my question would be this: When you say have the time do you mean the time it would take to use their massive computer technology to design, test and build a clean sheet new a/c or do you mean the time it would take for the program design stage to contribute positively to the bottom line, the development phase have produce enough test frames to significantly impact next ROI, earnings etc. and the production phase ensure that the company is viable for the next 10-20 years producing sufficient frames for the US and other export customers?

Years ago a/c were designed and built using slide rules and less exotic materials, even when such materials were used it never took the decades that we talk about today, wind tunnel test were either a water tank or a full size production frame being flown by a human. If an OEM chooses they can design and build a test frame within a year faster if they use an engine already in production, the issue in my line of thinking is not whether they can, but whether some financial person justifies the financial decision to them, in which case we should be looking at financial data such as last quarter earning, current income, expenses, projects in the pipeline, future initiative, stimulus packages hoped for, next economic upturn / downturn etc. and not whether there is a need for a new a/c, how efficient it should be, easy to fly, adequately train pilots for a/c presently in inventory etc. etc. etc.

I guess this whole post was a rant, apologies.  Smile


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

I doubt a clean sheet design.
Likely a US version of the Macchi M-346 or the Korean aircraft.

When was the last time the US built a clean sheet trainer.
1982, the BAe Hawk was picked for the USN.
The T-6 'Texan' is a modified Swiss design.
Just two examples off the top of my head.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29805 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting GDB (Reply 2):
When was the last time the US built a clean sheet trainer.
1982, the BAe Hawk was picked for the USN

Not clean sheet either, As you note it was a Hawk derivitive.

I would go for the Slingsby Firefly, which was unsuccessfully used by the USAF Acadamy.

Of course they where replaced by the Katana, so that probably can be called the latest trainer.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12160 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

I doubt that Boeing would have time to design a clean sheet trainer. Does the USAF want a supersonic trainer like the T-38 is? If so, I doubt anyone could deliver a new airplane by 2014 with an IOC of 2017.

Boeing may be wanting to join up with someone else who already has a trainer in production. Perhaps the Japanese Kawasaki T-4, if they reopen the production line?


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting L-188 (Reply 3):
I would go for the Slingsby Firefly, which was unsuccessfully used by the USAF Acadamy.

That was a somewhat bizarre case, since the Firefly is used successfully enough by other AF's and/or contractors.
Not sure if they ever got to the bottom of that.

My money, for the T-38 replacement, is on a US version of the Macchi M-346, it's being touted as suitable for training modern generation combat aircraft, in terms of both it's systems and aerodynamics.
Which is the rationale, apart from age, of replacing the T-38's.

While I'd love to see the USAF buy the latest BAE Hawk version, or to be more correct, a new 'de-navalised' T-45 version, which could systems wise do the job, I suspect the USAF will want something more modern aerodynamically.
(The Hawk's best shot at the USAF was about 20 years ago, when it was briefly considered for the lower end of the T-38 mission, restricting the subsequent modernization of the T-38 to just the newer frames for the upper end part of the training syllabus).


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Depends on what the USAF wants. I am sure that Boeing could field a simple design. No light attack version, no crazy high tech new gear, using existing or lightly modified avionics, current engines... just a simple trainer. If they want to develop more capacity after the fact, sure, but if they want to get a order, they better follow the KISS mentality.

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29805 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
That was a somewhat bizarre case, since the Firefly is used successfully enough by other AF's and/or contractors.
Not sure if they ever got to the bottom of that.

I don't think it was an airframe issue, it was an engine problem, it would vapor lock at the high density altitudes at Colorado Springs in the summer.

I don't think that anybody else used that engine/frame combo.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15794 posts, RR: 27
Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
or to be more correct, a new 'de-navalised' T-45 version

T-45 production should be ending soon. Kind of a shame since I enjoyed seeing those flying around STL. I think that Boeing could, and should come up with a clean sheet design for the T-X. The T-38 is a great plane, but its time may have come.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting DEVILFISH (Thread starter):
Flightglobal reports that Boeing is contemplating a completely new jet trainer as its entry for the planned USAF T-X competition. But with first delivery targeted for 2014 and IOC in 2017, would Boeing have enough time to develop a clean-sheet design?

Would it be that hard to field a simple jet trainer in four years and have it fully operational in seven? I suspect that Boeing has already done some initial design work and has a good idea what they want to propose for the competition. That being the case, their head start would give them an edge and make possible the proposed service introduction.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineJackonicko From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 472 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

It should be a T-45 derivative.

User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting L-188 (Reply 7):
I don't think it was an airframe issue, it was an engine problem, it would vapor lock at the high density altitudes at Colorado Springs in the summer.

I'm on the other side of the hill from the USAFA, and we're only at 6,700 feet. The Piper Cubs are up here all day every day towing gliders, and the T-41s soldier on. Nothing that couldn't be fixed with the correct fuel.

I'd be wary about a vapor locking engine at this low altitude, but I suppose it could happen.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineKukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 9):
Would it be that hard to field a simple jet trainer in four years and have it fully operational in seven?

But would an all-new design be competitive financially, assuming that an existing design like the M-346 can meet the USAF's requirements?



Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
User currently offlineJackonicko From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 472 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Good point.

The adoption of an advanced T-45 derivative by the USAF would be low cost (the line is up and running) and would provide massive savings in logistics and support costs thanks to commonality with the Navy's T-45 fleet.

The USAF could usefully build on some of the work already undertaken for the Hawk 128, and might look hard at some of the support and training system solutions now being delivered to the UK RAF.

With such a potentially large order, though, it would be desirable for the US to take on the remaining airframe manufacture of the T-45 (at the moment the rear fuselage still comes from Brough), cutting BAE Systems out of the loop.

Providing supersonic performance imposes significant cost and compromises on a trainer design and has been proven to be irrelevant to the advanced training role.


User currently offlineCTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting DEVILFISH (Thread starter):
But with first delivery targeted for 2014 and IOC in 2017, would Boeing have enough time to develop a clean-sheet design?

Twenty years ago the answer would have been yes. Today? I seriously doubt they could pull it off.

The problem is that after losing the JSF to Lockheed, Mc Boeing in St Louis has lost most of the critical personel with the skills required due to retirement, layoffs and departure to Lockheed for the F-35.

Have fun,

CTR



Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 13):
The adoption of an advanced T-45 derivative by the USAF would be low cost (the line is up and running) and would provide massive savings in logistics and support costs thanks to commonality with the Navy's T-45 fleet.

You have a lot of good points in your post, but I think the T-45 is fundamentally wrong for one reason:

If this trainer is intended to be workhorse advanced trainer for fighter, bomber, and transport types, I think it really needs to have two engines. This would enable "engine-out" flight that simply would not be paralleled in a simulator. I suppose you could do engine-out in a goshawk, however that's an entirely new can of worms. I think this and the supersonic capability on the M-346 make it a much better option.

As I understand it, the T-45 is substantially changed from the basic Hawk. Would the USAF T-45 retain most of these Navy options?



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12160 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (5 years 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Well, it looks like most here think the M-346 would be the best replacement for the USAF T-38s. I just don't see the USAF buying into a modified T-45, mostly because the USAF considers it a "USN aircraft".

User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4887 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Update:

Some clarifications on the program requirements and signs it could be moving ahead.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-prepare-for-t-38-replacement.html

Quote:
"The US Air Force may be within months of launching a contest to replace the Northrop T-38 Talon trainer that was introduced in 1962.

At least five companies are plotting potential bids to win the contract to replace 450 T-38s and become the go-to trainer option worldwide for Lockheed Martin's fifth-generation fighters - the F-22 and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter."



The usual suspects are lining up to fill the bill --- with the renamed T-100 (M-346) leading the pack.....


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Simone Bovi
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Fabio Ferioli - Spot IT


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Remco Donselaar - Touchdown Aviation
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stuart Freer - Touchdown-aviation


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Flyingvietcolin
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © KianHong



However, most intriguing would be Northrop Grumman's response.....

Quote:
"As the legacy T-38 supplier, Northrop's preferred route may be offering a service life extension programme for the Talon fleet.

Dave McDonald, a plans, programmes and requirements manager for the Air Education and Training Command (AETC), confirms 'extending the life of the baseline system' remains one of the options on the USAF's list.

Northrop also has the ability to surprise the competition by producing an all-new, clean-sheet design. In addition to its long heritage in the trainer market, the company owns a major stake in Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites.

Among several ambitious design projects over the years, Scaled designed and built a jet-powered replacement for the Fairchild A-10 ground-attack aircraft in the early 1990s called the agile response effective support aircraft."


What could it be --- a two-seat version of the Tigershark?      

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mark Carlisle




"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Burt Rutan + F-20= 0_o

At least Northrop would get some return on the F-20.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

From a distance, it seems the Italians have the best papers (again may I say).

It's modern/digital, proven, has engine redundancy, fighter like maneuverability.

http://www.aermacchi.it/files/M346A2523_0.jpg

It's original designers live in Russia, at Yakovlev, but thats a long story..


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 20, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Big article in this week's Flight about the USAF trainer requirement.
The Korean design, done with major US design/technology input, always had the USAF T-38 requirement in mind.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-prepare-for-t-38-replacement.html

[Edited 2010-06-22 10:40:17]

User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4887 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

A bit of background perspective.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...reviewing-t-x-the-biggest-usa.html

Quoting Oroka (Reply 18):
Burt Rutan + F-20= 0_o

There are a few composite frames being offered with EDF engines (but no afterburners), mostly from China.   

Quoting Oroka (Reply 18):
At least Northrop would get some return on the F-20.

They'd have to build it first and win. But wouldn't it be some poetic justice if they did?   


Quoting keesje (Reply 19):
It's original designers live in Russia, at Yakovlev, but thats a long story..

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dmitry Zherdin
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dmitry Shirenin


Now, that would be the ultimate irony - "American trainer reverse-engineered from Russian design"!

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
Big article in this week's Flight about the USAF trainer requirement.

The real 'biggie' according to the blog above is this.....

Quote:
"But there is one thing holding this story back, and it's a 'biggie'. So far, the USAF hasn't put any real funding into the budget for T-X, despite plans to award a full-scale development contract before 2013. Industry expects that oversight to be cleared up in the Fiscal 2012 budget request that will be released in early February."



[Edited 2010-06-22 11:22:28]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

I'm not sure Boeing knows how to design and bring from the drawing board to reality, a modern military aircraft since they bought out McDD. Sure, the Super Hornet was a whole new aircraft, but not according to Boeing who said to the US Congress that it wasn't, so that they wouldn't need their financial blessing for the project. So what's that, the early 1980's since they won a bid for a newly designed military fighter jet aircraft? Personally, I think Boeing no longer has the muster to pull off the task, but I sure would like to see them try and prove me and all of us wrong.

User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3638 posts, RR: 27
Reply 23, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 22):
I'm not sure Boeing knows how to design and bring from the drawing board to reality, a modern military aircraft since they bought out McDD

ST Loius is McDD... lock, stock and barrel...and they run the company. that's why on the commercial side the feeling is McDD bought Boeing just didn't chnage the name...


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 32767 times:

Who will be the partner for the 346? NG?

25 trex8 : one other possible "off the shelf" option and a proven design would be a updated Taiwanese IDF trainer variant, though you would think LM would be the
26 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : The KAI T-50 is perhaps unique among the candidates in that it was envisioned from the outset to be an advanced, supersonic jet trainer tailored for
27 KC135TopBoom : Perhaps Boeing is thinking about shrinking the F/A-18F Super Hornet as a proposal, possibly with F-404 engines instead of the F-414 the SH has. Shrink
28 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : Wouldn't this essentially be Northrop's YF-17 Cobra, though with tandem seats and GE F404s instead of the old GE YJ101? http://www.google.com/imgres?
29 KC135TopBoom : Well, it could be, but smaller. The YF-17 evolved into the F/A-18A/B. Northrop, now part of NG worked with MDD on the F/A-18, I believe they built th
30 trex8 : in what way? the hawk and M346 variants are slower, and the M346 actually uses a non afterburning version of the IDF CKs engine and Honeywell even tr
31 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : Maybe if they do away with the afterburner. I'm trying to find a photo of the stepped-cockpit N-285 carrier version to no avail. What I did find are
32 DiamondFlyer : It looks good too. But alas, looks alone aren't going to win the contest. -DiamondFlyer
33 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : If it did, we would have never had the A-10.
34 Post contains links and images keesje : Looking at the AIDC F-CK-1B Ching Kuo I wondered if its a real trainer, it's a bit of an F16. Probably it was better to name it a trainer.. Single sea
35 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : Too bad Keesje doesn't have the MAKO to cheer for anymore..... http://static.rcgroups.com/forums/at...-197-eads_mako_10.jpg?d=1141053928 .....the desc
36 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : A little more insight into Boeing's thinking..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ospects-for-us-trainers-swiss.html Quote: "But Chadwick predi
37 KC135TopBoom : Since this will be a pilot trainer, I don't see any need for stealth. Vectored thrust would not be desireable in a trainer, as that type training wou
38 keesje : Or strenghten it´s negotiation position towards those parties. ''We don´t really need you..´´ is so much better then ''We have no choice..´´
39 KC135TopBoom : That could be true. The RFP is scheduled to be released in early 2011 with the first delivery scheduled for 2014. It would be very tough to design a
40 Post contains links and images joecanuck : That's the ticket...
41 KC135TopBoom : I also think the F-20 would be a great trainer and replacement for the T-38. But the USAF rejected the F-20 as a light weight fighter back in the '80s
42 Oroka : Rejected as a light weight fighter... sure, but with a new engine, some material refinements, upgraded avionics the F-20 would be a nice trainer. The
43 KC135TopBoom : Perhaps. It would share a lot of the current T-38 design, and the engine could be upgraded from the F-404 to the F-414.
44 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : If it'd purely be a pilot trainer, yes. If Boeing were looking for plenty of LCA sales later on the side, then some stealth shaping would be helpful,
45 KC135TopBoom : While I always like the F-20, I just don't see it selected as the T-X. Even with updates, it is still a single engine airplane and it would depend on
46 keesje : If you make the trainer supersonic and stealth it will probably be 2-3 x as expensive as competing trainers and trainers flying around with expensive
47 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : Was it those which killed the Mako?..... for it was described here thusly..... http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mako/ Quote: Mako airframe
48 keesje : Probably (don't know the "Mako") it seems inbetween a fighter and a trainer, not good at both.
49 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : Really?.....Here's an introduction then..... http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRAT2000.htm Paradoxically, both the T-38 and the F-5 excelled a
50 Oroka : Both should be somewhat easy, being based on the F-5/T-38. Take the cockpit from something in production, dumb it down a bit. In todays budget climat
51 Post contains images DEVILFISH : It was really interesting to see how a project begins, and ends with the various proponents finally competing with each other as in the case of the ai
52 KC135TopBoom : Correct.
53 Post contains links DEVILFISH : In a related development, the T-50 has just been eliminated from the Singapore contest..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ounce-m-346-trainer
54 KC135TopBoom : I don't know if that will or will not have an impact on the new USAF trainer.
55 Post contains links DEVILFISH : No definite way forward yet for Boeing on the T-X..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...n-clean-sheet-design-for-t-38.html If Boeing's indecisio
56 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Update: Manufacturers seem upbeat and eager, even for a program with no clear source of funding yet..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...as-ten
57 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : Here's the latest declarant.....is U.S. Aerospace pulling another stunt?..... http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...eport-chinese-aircraft-propos.htm
58 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Update: No palpable sense of urgency despite funding increase..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ps-tenfold-in-latest-spending.html Quote: "U
59 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : Apparently not. The Dew Line hints at NG's possible candidate..... .http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/graham-warwick/Ares%20then.jpg http://www.fligh
60 Post contains links and images Devilfish : Boeing sees a delay of "several years" for the T-38 replacement tender..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...y-promotes-new-jet-to-replace.html
61 Post contains links and images Devilfish : Alas, Northrop Grumman is not teaming up with Boeing nor fielding something revolutionary..... http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...rop-team-for-usa
62 Post contains links cosmofly : It has a 2 seater version. See pic #3 in the link. http://www.timesunion.com/news/artic...s-upgraded-fighter-jet-1446823.php A better pic: http://en.
63 Post contains links and images Garyck : Two Hawk T2 departed BAE Systems Warton with longrange tanks on today en-route to the USA. I understand them to be ZK020 & ZK029. They have spent
64 Post contains links and images Devilfish : And finally, Boeing's new trainer concept is revealed...... http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...2011/09/19/Boeing%20TX%20thumb.jpg Very nice.....I
65 AirRyan : But it cannot possibly compete with a design already readily available for production.
66 Post contains links Devilfish : There may be some breathing room to catch up..... http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...stuck-in-usaf-budget-limbo-362360/ Quote: "But Donley's list
67 Post contains links and images Devilfish : As it turns out, there's plenty of time to fine tune the design, build and test prototypes, and mature a production standard demo trainer..... http://
68 ebj1248650 : Looks like a cross of the F/A-18D and the YF-23A. Interesting concept.
69 Post contains links and images Devilfish : Almost what was said of the ATG Javelin being a blend of the T-38 and F/A-18. Alas, that twin Williams FJ33 powered prototype initially meant as a pe
70 Post contains links and images Devilfish : This report from AvWeek shows the silhouette of a very familiar, conventional airframe..... . http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_07_11_2
71 checksixx : I would keep it simple if I were bidding. A new build T-38, kind of like what happened with the Hornet/Super Hornet. Take a T-38 design and simply mak
72 Post contains links cosmofly : A NASA T-38 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T-38_Silhouette.jpg
73 Post contains links Devilfish : Boeing is still presumed to be fielding a clean-sheet design..... http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...af-releases-draft-t-x-kpps-377693/ Quote: "Th
74 Devilfish : Just a "teaser" for now..... https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=bf983f70891e8607c86ef426a87a87e3&tab=core&_cview=0 Q
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
"new" C130 For The Belgium Airforce posted Tue Apr 10 2007 19:47:35 by HeliflyerPDC
New Support Helicopters For The RAF posted Sat Mar 31 2007 00:51:48 by GDB
New Boeing CH-47F Helicopter Takes Flight posted Thu Oct 26 2006 09:53:54 by Columba
Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17 posted Thu Mar 9 2006 14:58:50 by DAYflyer
New Bomber Plans For USAF, J-UCAS Cancelled. posted Mon Jan 16 2006 22:39:21 by CX747
New VIP Aircrafts For The German Goverment posted Sun Jan 15 2006 13:51:15 by Columba
The New Boeing Pelican? posted Mon Oct 17 2005 20:50:17 by PhatAlbert
New USN Method For Dealing With Terrorists posted Sun Feb 6 2005 02:23:46 by DL021
New Paint Job For F-117 posted Thu Feb 19 2004 16:21:38 by Twalives
Which Boeing Model Is Best For New Air Force 1? posted Mon Mar 23 2009 18:13:34 by Nitepilot79
Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17 posted Thu Mar 9 2006 14:58:50 by DAYflyer
New Bomber Plans For USAF, J-UCAS Cancelled. posted Mon Jan 16 2006 22:39:21 by CX747

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format