User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5413
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Fri Oct 21, 2016 6:19 pm

While both companies seem to have worked out their differences, it's still not very clear who should be leading and what arrangements would be in case they won T-X and there were export prospects.....

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/ray ... artnership

Quote:
"Problems over who should take a senior role in the partnership arose because while Raytheon is the prime contractor, Leonardo designed and built the aircraft and has already sold the M-346, on which the T-100 is based, to Italy, Israel, Poland and Singapore.

[.....]

Although Raytheon committed that the aircraft would be assembled in the United States, there were some issues over the work share, the second source said — defining whether that would include structural assembly, for example.

[.....]

Another delicate question is potential exports of the plane by Raytheon outside the US, should it win the T-X competition, said the first source.

Having shared the technology with Raytheon, Leonardo could find its own global marketing effort to sell the M-346 challenged, as the company competes with exports of an 'American' plane by Raytheon to countries who might prefer doing business through the US Foreign Military Sales program.

'There might need to be a deal to split the export market with Raytheon,' the source said."



While necessary and important, it could be said that most of these are like "counting the chicks before the eggs are hatched" and presumptuous. Perhaps Leonardo are still smarting from the JCA saga :?:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2590
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Sat Oct 22, 2016 4:35 am

Devilfish wrote:
While both companies seem to have worked out their differences, it's still not very clear who should be leading and what arrangements would be in case they won T-X and there were export prospects.....

While necessary and important, it could be said that most of these are like "counting the chicks before the eggs are hatched" and presumptuous. Perhaps Leonardo are still smarting from the JCA saga :?:

It's a legitimate concern. Hashing out the arrangements beforehand, especially related to potential export prospects, is required from any successful partnership. Many nations prefer to purchase military hardware via the US FMS process, instead of dealing directly with the vendor, even if the equipment was originally built by an non-American company that was marketed to the US military by an American company.

For example, Australia is buying the C-27J via the US FMS process, with the prime contractor being L-3 Communications. I'm sure Leonardo would have preferred to have Australia buy the aircraft from them directly.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5413
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Tue Oct 25, 2016 4:51 pm

At least, they agree enough on the final assembly site.....

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/ray ... embly-site

Quote:
"At least 70 percent of the T-100 training system — including ground-based systems —will be built in the United States, a Raytheon spokesman said. Under the terms of the agreement, Raytheon would be responsible for final assembly, checkout and delivery at the Meridian site, while structural assembly will take place in Italy.

'Our process determined that the best location for building the T-100 is Meridian, Mississippi,' Rick Yuse, president of Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems, said in a statement. 'It provides the right blend of infrastructure, proximity to our customers, government support and a talent base that's ready for the high tech jobs critical to our success'."



Image
http://snagfilms.s3.amazonaws.com/e3/f1 ... eadjpg.jpg
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5413
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: RE: T-X Requirements Released

Fri Dec 16, 2016 7:50 pm

rlwynn wrote:
Textron has ruled the Scorpion out. It does not meet the requirements.

Any bets for a Johnny-Come-Lately?..... :| .....

http://aviationweek.com/defense/sierra- ... rainer-t-x

Quote:
"Sierra Nevada Corp. (SNC) and Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) are betting that the U.S. Air Force is seeking a fuel-efficient advanced pilot trainer to succeed the outdated Northrop T-38 Talon, like the one the companies plan to offer. With the spotlight shining on the major primes until now, the two businesses have quietly set up shop in Centennial, Colorado, as Freedom Aircraft Ventures LLC, to develop a lightweight, all-composite trainer powered by two business jet-class engines..."


Image
http://aviationweek.com/site-files/avia ... ppromo.jpg


Doesn't that bear an uncanny resemblance to the Scorpion which TextronAirLand was proposing for an attack mission :confused: Perhaps it would turn into a fighter/trainer/agressor if we stared long enough at it. :eyepopping:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5413
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Sun Jan 01, 2017 3:21 pm

And as the year closed, contenders were ushered into the starting gates.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... fp-432824/

Quote:
"T-X contenders are off to the races today, after the US Air Force released its much anticipated final request for proposals for the T-38 trainer replacement programme.

The $16.3 billion RFP encompasses a total of 350 aircraft, including delivery of the initial five test aircraft, contract options for LRIP lots 1 and 2 and full-rate production of lots 3 through 11.

The USAF is expected to award the contract in 2017 and reach initial operational capability by the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2024, the service says in a 30 December statement."



Off they go..... :spin:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 821
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Mon Jan 02, 2017 7:29 pm

So who will win?

Image
Boeing/SAAB T-X

Image
Northrop Grumman/BAe Systems T-X

Image
Lockheed T-50A (KAI T-50 Golden Eagle)

Image
Raytheon T-100 (Leonardo M346)

The Lockheed and Raytheon entries are low risk, the T-100 two engined, perhaps more expensive? Northrop Grumman seems to be flimsy to me. The Boeing design is interesting, but a clean sheet, so more risk.
I think Lockheed will get another contract ;-)
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
estorilm
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:26 pm

Dutchy wrote:
So who will win?

Image
Boeing/SAAB T-X

Image
Northrop Grumman/BAe Systems T-X

Image
Lockheed T-50A (KAI T-50 Golden Eagle)

Image
Raytheon T-100 (Leonardo M346)

The Lockheed and Raytheon entries are low risk, the T-100 two engined, perhaps more expensive? Northrop Grumman seems to be flimsy to me. The Boeing design is interesting, but a clean sheet, so more risk.
I think Lockheed will get another contract ;-)

I agree - and at the end of the day, familiarity with the F-22 and F-35 is kinda the entire point of a trainer, so Lockheed will be able to leverage this concept throughout the competition - I'm guessing it would be fairly easy to incorporate small SA things into the avionics that closely represent what a pilot may experience in the two Lockheed fighters.

The Boeing concept looks great (literally) for sure - and I'd imagine (just based on the maneuverability of the hornet / super hornet) that it would be a great performer as well - perhaps more "fighter-like" than the others.
 
User avatar
himself
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:02 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Sun Jan 08, 2017 2:03 am

I like the Boeing design, too. The USAF tends not to buy foreign planes--possibly for political reasons so I don't see them going for the T-50 or T-100. Boeing's also very experienced with making flight simulators for their other aircraft, commercial and military, so will ace the ground-training part of the contract. Northrop's design looks dated, to me, with that huge tailfin, and lacking all the other nice proportions of the T-38. The SNC design seems to be the most risky. All they can show us is crummy render of their jet. It's almost a prank.

However, I supposed all the T-X competitors may be sandbagging so as to lull the others into thinking they've got a better chance than they do. That, and it could come down to price, where the winner will have to lower their price to get razor-thin margins for at least these first 350 units.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 3987
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Sun Jan 08, 2017 9:41 am

For industrial reasons I think Lockmart won´t win because otherwise the USAF will be all LM soon. I would also rule out Raytheon due to the T-50 being closely related to the Russian trainer. Imho Boeing looks to be leading with NG being a bit of a dark horse.
 
jollo
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 7:24 pm

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Sun Jan 08, 2017 6:17 pm

seahawk wrote:
For industrial reasons I think Lockmart won´t win because otherwise the USAF will be all LM soon. I would also rule out Raytheon due to the T-50 being closely related to the Russian trainer. Imho Boeing looks to be leading with NG being a bit of a dark horse.


Get your facts straight:
  • Raytheon will be running with the T-100; T-50A is Lockheed's horse
  • the T-50 competing for T-X has nothing to do with Russia (developed by a KAI-Lockheed joint-venture in the late 90'); T-50 is also an alternate designation for Sukoi's PAK-FA, but that's a totally different kettle of fish, no confusion should be possible...
  • the T-100 is in fact a Leonardo (formerly Alenia-Aermacchi) M-346 Master with final assembly planned in Missisippi to bring the "made in USA" ratio over 70% (in value); the M-346 started life in 1993 as a joint-venture with Yakolev, but the collaboration broke off after just 5 years (with Alenia retaining all rights for international sales except to Russia and CIS states, e.g. Bielorussia). Since 1999 development was 100% made in Italy (first flight in 2004), and any similarity today between a M-346 and a Y-130 is limited to exterior looks (and the same target mission, of course); everything within - materials, structure, engines, avionics, software, etc. - is as different as can be. Sspecifically, there are no Russian-sourced components at all in a M-346 (let alone a T-100). Closely related? Please.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 3987
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Sun Jan 08, 2017 8:11 pm

Yes, sorry I mixed up the designations. however I still think, the USAF will not want a trainer which looks like a Russian and was designed in Italy. T-50A looks like the frontrunner, but this means giving everything fighter related to Lockmart. NG has the B-21 contract, so this leaves only Boeing without a current USAF contract.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4214
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Sun Jan 08, 2017 8:30 pm

seahawk wrote:
so this leaves only Boeing without a current USAF contract.


Other than the KC-46...
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 3987
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:52 am

moo wrote:
seahawk wrote:
so this leaves only Boeing without a current USAF contract.


Other than the KC-46...


But that won´t save the the military side of Boeing at St. Louis once the Super Hornet production ends. If the US wants to keep at least 3 capable firms for future fighter projects, Boeing needs the TX win.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:07 am

seahawk wrote:
But that won´t save the the military side of Boeing at St. Louis once the Super Hornet production ends. If the US wants to keep at least 3 capable firms for future fighter projects, Boeing needs the TX win.


Or maybe Trump did have some deeper thoughts about cancelling a large bunch of F-35 orders and transferring them to the proposed Advanced Super Hornet ;)
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4214
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:54 am

seahawk wrote:
moo wrote:
seahawk wrote:
so this leaves only Boeing without a current USAF contract.


Other than the KC-46...


But that won´t save the the military side of Boeing at St. Louis once the Super Hornet production ends. If the US wants to keep at least 3 capable firms for future fighter projects, Boeing needs the TX win.


Boeing has survived before without any fighter contract - both their current offerings are bought in from the MDD merger and by all accounts that expertise has been long gone from the workforce.

Why does Boeing need to survive as a third capable firm for future fighter contracts? Why not General Dynamics?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: keesje, KingOfATC and 11 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