T-X Trainer - Boeing T-7A Red Hawk

[flateric]

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/09/photos-fighter-bomber-trainer.html

http://defensetech.org/2011/09/19/dont-hold-your-breath-for-t-x/

 

[Grey Havoc]

Boeing Leans Toward New-Build Design For U.S. Air Force T-X (Ares blog)

After a long flirtation with the concept of a partnership to offer a foreign fast-jet trainer to the U.S. Air Force as a T-38C replacement, Boeing will forgo an off-the-shelf bid in favor of a new-build design or opt not to bid at all.

“We have looked at a lot of different options. But our belief is the aerospace industry and the defense industry need somebody who can come in and provide disruptive innovation,” says Chris Chadwick, president of Boeing Military Aircraft, in an interview with Aviation Week. “By year end, we will have agreed internally how we are going to move forward, and how and if we team for a clean-sheet design.”

Chadwick, however, says the company feels it can build a new aircraft without an escalated development price by rejecting the urge to infuse new and unproven technologies into the design.

As the Pentagon continues to feel financial pressure from social program demands on the U.S. budget, military officials should embrace new ways to acquire hardware that allow for reduced cost and time to field, Chadwick says.

In an effort to be more nimble, the company is aggressively pursuing ways to offer systems to the Pentagon at a reduced cost by taking on some of the development risk. A forthcoming T-X design, if it materializes, is one example.

 

[flateric]

A NEW ‘FREEDOM’ FIGHTER
BUILDING ON THE T-X COMPETITION
Peter Klicker


https://www.wm.edu/offices/revescenter/news/2012/PIPS%202011-2012%20PolicyBrief%20No%204%203%20ANewFreedomFighter%20Klicker%20Peter.pdf

[edited - new URL]

 

[flateric]

Boeing Leans Toward New-Build Design For U.S. Air Force T-X
By Amy Butler abutler@aviationweek.com
Source: AWIN First


July 11, 2012

After a long flirtation with the concept of a partnership to offer a foreign fast-jet trainer to the U.S. Air Force as a T-38C replacement, Boeing will forgo an off-the-shelf bid in favor of a new-build design or opt not to bid at all.

“We have looked at a lot of different options. But our belief is the aerospace industry and the defense industry need somebody who can come in and provide disruptive innovation,” says Chris Chadwick, president of Boeing Military Aircraft, in an interview with Aviation Week. “By year end, we will have agreed internally how we are going to move forward, and how and if we team for a clean-sheet design.”

The field of T-X competitors includes BAE with a Hawk aircraft, Alenia Aermacchi (which is shopping for a U.S. partner) with the M346 (a derivative of the Russian Yak-130) and the Lockheed Martin/Korea Aerospace Industries T-50. The Air Force plans to buy 350 of the trainers as well as ground-based training systems and aids; a competition is unlikely to start before 2013.

Saab is said to also be considering a Gripen-based trainer offering. Despite speculation to the contrary, the Yak-130 will not be in the running, says Konstantin Popovich, head of Russia’s Yakovlev engineering center. “Since we have good relations with Aermacchi [which builds a derivative of the aircraft in Italy] . . . we are trying to be realistic,” Popovich told reporters during a briefing here July 11. “We understand that is the Western option of the aircraft” for the Air Force’s T-X competition.

Air Force officials have indicated they are strongly leaning toward an off-the-shelf purchase owing to a desire to reduce the cost of development.

Chadwick, however, says the company feels it can build a new aircraft without an escalated development price by rejecting the urge to infuse new and unproven technologies into the design.

As the Pentagon continues to feel financial pressure from social program demands on the U.S. budget, military officials should embrace new ways to acquire hardware that allow for reduced cost and time to field, Chadwick says.

In an effort to be more nimble, the company is aggressively pursuing ways to offer systems to the Pentagon at a reduced cost by taking on some of the development risk. A forthcoming T-X design, if it materializes, is one example.

Another is a proposal by Boeing to expand on the work on the Navy’s 737-based P-8 maritime surveillance aircraft with a 737-based offering overland and air-surveillance capabilities now provided by Air Force 707s. They say the Air Force can benefit from the nonrecurring engineering already paid for by the Navy and spend precious dollars on tailoring the mission systems for its requirements.

Copyright © 2012, Aviation Week, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_07_11_2012_p0-475701.xml#

 

[flateric]

Boeing's T-X four-post tail configuration shown in presentation at Dubai Air Show in September 2011

 

[Pioneer]

A NEW ‘FREEDOM’ FIGHTER
BUILDING ON THE T-X COMPETITION
Peter Klicker


http://irtheoryandpractice.wm.edu/projects/PIPS/PIPS.2011-2012/ANewFreedomFighter.Klicker.Peter.pdf

Interesting!! Thanks for sharing Flateric

Regards
Pioneer

 

[SlowMan]

Boeing's T-X four-post tail configuration shown in presentation at Dubai Air Show in September 2011

Well, the USAF has no money for a new airframe and will buy an existing one off the shelf.

What's really interesting is Saab's stripped-down Gripen T-X offering.

 

[SlowMan]

T-X KPP document released.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-releases-draft-t-x-kpps-377693/

USAF releases draft T-X KPPs

The KPPs include a requirement for the prospective aircraft to have an operational availability of no less than 64.7%. It must also be able to sustain 6.5Gs for no less than 15 seconds using no more than 15 degrees nose low attitude at 80% fuel weight between an altitude of 10,000 and 20,000 feet.

Key system attributes (KSA) include the ability to attain a minimum of 7.5G and an onset rate of 3Gs per second. The USAF wants the T-X to be able to attain at least a 12° per second instantaneous turn rate with a sustained turn rate of 9°. It should also be able to conduct angle-of-attack maneuvering at greater than the 20° angle-of-attack. It also needs to have enough fuel for visual range dogfighting and it needs to be able to make dry contacts with an aerial refueling tanker. Other KSAs for the T-X aircraft include having simulated radars, data-links, radar-warning receivers, situational awareness displays and a full glass-cockpit similar to the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and F-35. The T-X must also have the ability to simulate a wide range of air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons including the AIM-120 and Small Diameter Bomb onboard.

https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=517f912be4db8a348e0e88a4803b5c4f

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://xbradtc.com/2013/01/29/t-x-competition-moves-forward-despite-funding-challenges/

 

[GeorgeA]

Boeing and Saab to propose the JAS 39E/F version of the Gripen for the T-X competition:


http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_09_11_2013_p0-615489.xml


Interestingly, the article also discusses using the Gripen for DACT and air sovereignty missions.

 

[kcran567]

Its dissapointing that boeing is settling for a warmed over Gripen. :-\ What happened to their clean sheet design? Yet another sign of a fading superpower. America is choosing between a Swedish and a Korean design? Was really hoping for an new generation, innovative, stealthy, agile F-5/Talon class of aircraft that might have been more affordable than the F-35.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Yet another sign of a fading superpower. America is choosing between a Swedish and a Korean design?

:

child please.

Great news for SAAB though. Maybe Boeing will fund the two seat version they couldn't afford to develop themselves.

 

[kcran567]

Yet another sign of a fading superpower. America is choosing between a Swedish and a Korean design?

:

child please.

Great news for SAAB though. Maybe Boeing will fund the two seat version they couldn't afford to develop themselves.

I'm disappointed. Would like to see maybe a joint Boeing/Saab clean sheet design however. We should be building an all new 5th/6th generation trainer to train pilots for 5th and 6th generation aircraft. Not happy about warmed over Swedish leftovers.

 

[SOC]

Boeing and Saab to propose the JAS 39E/F version of the Gripen for the T-X competition:

Saab apparently does not agree on the second page of the article, saying it might not make a good trainer.

Interestingly, the article also discusses using the Gripen for DACT and air sovereignty missions.

Now, as an ANG/AFR F-16 replacement, this could actually be a good idea. Chasing Cessnas or airliners around doesn't require an LO aircraft (and probably not even an F-16), and neither does performing peacetime intercepts of BLACKJACKs for that matter. Is it better to go this route over a clean sheet trainer design "upgunned" with an AI radar, gun, and a few AMRAAMs? Maybe, especially if there is little to no development cost associated with the buy.

Otherwise, for a supersonic trainer, it's pretty much the T-50 or a new airplane.

 

[Sundog]

I'm disappointed. Would like to see maybe a joint Boeing/Saab clean sheet design however. We should be building an all new 5th/6th generation trainer to train pilots for 5th and 6th generation aircraft. Not happy about warmed over Swedish leftovers.

You don't understand the point of a training aircraft. It doesn't need stealth or to carry weapons internally or to possess the ability to supercruise; those are all hall marks of the "gens" you're describing. What it needs is to operate like those aircraft, with advanced systems, without costing near as much as the front line systems. Also, they need to make sure the funds to develop it aren't extensive. A clean sheet design may be cheap to operate, but it won't be as cheap to develop and buy as something that already exists in some form.

I know L-M will probably go with the T-50, but I think they would be much better off going with a de-rated F-16. Just put the minimum systems in it to make it a training aircraft. They already have the production line set up here and they already have the infrastructure to support both the airframe and the engine in place. Maybe even go with a de-rated engine, which would also greatly extend the life of the engine.

Personally speaking, I think Boeing using the Gripen as a basis for it's submission is a a brilliant move, if they don't make it too much airplane for the requirement.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I'm disappointed. Would like to see maybe a joint Boeing/Saab clean sheet design however.

And by not doing that the US is ceding it superpower status? (again, as we use Texans and Hawks that did not originate here),

We should be building an all new 5th/6th generation trainer to train pilots for 5th and 6th generation aircraft.

What does that entail exactly? What would make a trainer "5th/6th generation" ? On that note, what is 6th generation?

Honestly a Gripen F, if it lives up to all the hype is probably overkill for this purpose.

Not happy about warmed over Swedish leftovers.

I did laugh ;D

 

[SOC]

And by not doing that the US is ceding it superpower status? (again, as we use Texans and Hawks that did not originate here)

We only cede superpower status if Boeing has to compete against the foreigners. It's totally OK for them to collaborate with Boeing! :-X

 

[F-14D]

Personally, I think this is a brilliant idea. The Gripen E/F is one heck of an aircraft, and if they really can sell it for less than a T-50, wow! This would greatly open up training possibilities, and other roles as well.

Regarding a derated F-16, I'd shy away from that. Reducing thrust below what the a/c was designed for hurts performance considerably more than the gain realized by adding thrust. You've still got the same amount of drag and mostly weight to overcome. The question would.

Regarding overkill, probably so. But if you can get it for a good price, why not?

 

[F-14D]

Its dissapointing that boeing is settling for a warmed over Gripen. :-\ What happened to their clean sheet design? Yet another sign of a fading superpower. America is choosing between a Swedish and a Korean design? Was really hoping for an new generation, innovative, stealthy, agile F-5/Talon class of aircraft that might have been more affordable than the F-35.

"Warmed over Gripen" is rather pejorative and doesn't reflect the reality. What Boeing problay realized is that startng with a clean sheet design that was affordable and competitive with the pricing of derviatives of other trainers wouldn't be that significantly better than everyone else, whereas here they can take something of the latest non-stealth technology and for minimal out of pocket R&D deliver a significantly more capable aircraft (I wonder if it'll include the rotating AESA). Wonder about the operating costs, though.

I also wonder if the deal will really get done...

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Personally, I think this is a brilliant idea. The Gripen E/F is one heck of an aircraft, and if they really can sell it for less than a T-50, wow! This would greatly open up training possibilities, and other roles as well.

Good point.

 

[kcran567]

I'm disappointed. Would like to see maybe a joint Boeing/Saab clean sheet design however. We should be building an all new 5th/6th generation trainer to train pilots for 5th and 6th generation aircraft. Not happy about warmed over Swedish leftovers.

You don't understand the point of a training aircraft. It doesn't need stealth or to carry weapons internally or to possess the ability to supercruise; those are all hall marks of the "gens" you're describing. What it needs is to operate like those aircraft, with advanced systems, without costing near as much as the front line systems. Also, they need to make sure the funds to develop it aren't extensive. A clean sheet design may be cheap to operate, but it won't be as cheap to develop and buy as something that already exists in some form.

I agree with what you say re training requirements and an existing aircraft would work just fine. An all new design would be much more cable for 5th/6th training requirements. With stealth proliferation around the world how else to realistically simulate those threats and capabilities. I was hoping for a 5 th/6th generation version of the f-5/ t-38. A capable low cost and light weight stealthy brand new design with some innovative technology that would fill the niche much like the f-5 in its day. Our allies would welcome this, and imagine an aggressor squadron of these for training purposes as well. I suspect that the real reason is the pentagon wants nothing to compete with the f-35 whatsoever so the idea was squashed quickly much like the f-20 was vs the f-16. Our allies would have wanted this if it wasn't a budget buster.

 

[kcran567]

I'm disappointed. Would like to see maybe a joint Boeing/Saab clean sheet design however.

And by not doing that the US is ceding it superpower status? (again, as we use Texans and Hawks that did not originate here),

We should be building an all new 5th/6th generation trainer to train pilots for 5th and 6th generation aircraft.

What does that entail exactly? What would make a trainer "5th/6th generation" ? On that note, what is 6th generation?

Honestly a Gripen F, if it lives up to all the hype is probably overkill for this purpose.

Not happy about warmed over Swedish leftovers.

I did laugh ;D

i know to you it seems unlikely, but there are hints that our superpower status is in decline morally ^Miley Cyrus^and economically ( take a look at Detroit for example, it looks worse than Hiroshima did after the Atom bomb was dropped) but I'll spare everyone that discussion. I appreciate the Texan, hawk, and even the gripen but seriously
if we are talking about using foreign designs I for one would pass on last weeks reheated Swedish meatballs would a thriving superpower need to resort to using old foreign competitors? For the reasons I think it's the wrong choice, and it could be a larger market for all new design.

 

[sferrin]

Personally, I think this is a brilliant idea. The Gripen E/F is one heck of an aircraft, and if they really can sell it for less than a T-50, wow! This would greatly open up training possibilities, and other roles as well.

Regarding a derated F-16, I'd shy away from that. Reducing thrust below what the a/c was designed for hurts performance considerably more than the gain realized by adding thrust. You've still got the same amount of drag and mostly weight to overcome. The question would.

Regarding overkill, probably so. But if you can get it for a good price, why not?

There's a reason nobody wanted the F-16/79

 

[AeroFranz]

The Gripen is a LOT of airplane for the trainer mission. There is already some doubt about the T-50 being disadvantaged versus the M346/T100 because of the larger size and operating costs.
I think the Gripen's a great aircraft, but when you start with a heavier, more sophisticated, higher-performance airframe than either competitors, you have to work very hard to justify the price tag in relationship to the requirements.


That is not to say that it won't work, i'm just skeptical about the practicality of it and Boeing selling it.


With regards to the amenities currently found on the JAS-39, and specifically the radar, i would get rid of the thing and pocket the savings, at least if training is all you're doing. That's probably $1M+ right there. Modern trainers have built-in simulations that allow you to replicate inflight engagement scenarios without actually having to lug the thing around (and buy it and maintain it). THat's on top of the ground simulators.


Of course, nothing says SAAB/Boeing couldn't sell a radar-equipped version for missions other than training. In that case, Raytheon and NG would push for a competition to put their SABR and RACR radars in there. The case for the -39 gets better when you can sell more of them for other customers/missions, but few things are more cost/effective than an aircraft designed from the start to requirements very close to those of the T-X RFP.

 

[Sundog]

There's a reason nobody wanted the F-16/79

The F-16/79 wasn't being marketed as a trainer, it was being marketed as a frontline fighter. That's a huge difference in the mission requirements and it had nothing to do with the large existing infrastructure we have with the program now.

As for lowering the thrust, it wouldn't be a problem, because most advanced trainers don't have a T/W of 1.0 anyway.

 

[Triton]

Too bad that Aviation Technology Group went bankrupt or we might have had the Javelin in the T-X competition.

ATG Javelin
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,37.msg123.html#msg123

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

i know to you it seems unlikely, but there are hints that our superpower status is in decline morally ^Miley Cyrus^and economically ( take a look at Detroit for example, it looks worse than Hiroshima did after the Atom bomb was dropped) but I'll spare everyone that discussion. I appreciate the Texan, hawk,

The Texan and Hawk are rehashed foriegn designs though, and Miley aside Training aircraft aren't really needed to be awesome Hi tech performers. They are meant to train, in that way they are all very similiar in which case there is no need to reinvent the wheel. All of this stuff costs, and as others have pointed out the expense needed for the aircraft you want, that is going to be a trainer anyway is unfeasible. If you want to try and play the superpower in decline card, buying foreign training aircraft like we did decades ago is a bad argument. Hell the US has operated combat aircraft of foreign manufacture many times throughout its history. It doesn't suddenly relinquish our super power status because they aren't building a niche aircraft you think we need. The US is about to dominate the combat fighter market for the next 40 years. If thats a "decline" I'll take it. Europe OTOH is selling less than ever. Ill let you do the math on who is declining. (sorry my measure is airplanes not pop stars)

if we are talking about using foreign designs I for one would pass on last weeks reheated Swedish meatballs [/size] would a thriving superpower need to resort to using old foreign competitors? For the reasons I think it's the wrong choice, and it could be a larger market for all new design.

There is market and its currently filled by the same aircraft that are competing for the T-X Your idea is take that market and create a bastard that is more expensive than the others in order to field capabilities no one needs for a trainer. So its too light for a combat aircraft, and too heavy and expensive for a trainer.

I agree with what you say re training requirements and an existing aircraft would work just fine. An all new design would be much more cable for 5th/6th training requirements. With stealth proliferation around the world how else to realistically simulate those threats and capabilities.

how? What makes a "5th/6th generation" trainer?

I was hoping for a 5 th/6th generation version of the f-5/ t-38. A capable low cost and light weight stealthy brand new design with some innovative technology that would fill the niche much like the f-5 in its day.

Substitute "F-16" for "F-5" in there and you have the basis of the F-35. Saying these things doesn't instantly make them so. We also have no idea what a sixth generation fighter is. And no one want to spend billions of dollars to develop a stealthy trainer.

Take a look at the hellacious time SAAB has had just trying to sell the Gripen NG. Look at its unit cost is so far. Look what its cost to develop. Look at how many orders its secured, Now imagine going clean sheet with even more advanced avionics and stealth features, and tell me where the market is for a fighter of that size at that price.

I suspect that the real reason is the pentagon wants nothing to compete with the f-35 whatsoever so the idea was squashed quickly much like the f-20 was vs the f-16. Our allies would have wanted this if it wasn't a budget buster.

That's extremely simplistic.

 

[F-14D]

Some thoughts:

JAS-39 E/F is a lot more than a "warmed over Gripen". Even some basic research will show that. As to why it hasn't been selling, aside from pure politics, it's competing against Rafale and Typhoon, which are admittedly higher performance in some areas and a lot more prestigious. Don't discount that as a factor. Plus, not that many countries are familiar with Swedish arms sales and capabilities, which cuases uncertainty. If the AF bought it, its prestige would immediately rise, and potential customers would feel more confident as well. It's worthy of note that the Super Hornet has not won a single competition.

Regarding a competition on putting SABR or RACR in there, I find that doubtful and ultimately pointless. Those are designed for aircraft that weren't already designed with an AESA-based system. Gripen E/F is already designed around a system that's as least as capable and has a much wider field of view, so trying to put one of those in there will do nothing except raise costs considerably, introduce delays and extend the EMD and require significant changes. Plus USAF is clearly looking for a training package. Why would they want to go out and sped the time and money to arrange a competition which at best will give them what they'd already have anyway? Of course, they could drop the radar and passive senors altogether (you'd have to put in ballast). That would reduce costs and as far a Sweden goes, all those airframes sold to the US would reduce costs finance them going back to offering a weaponized two seater. But you know, with as many as USAF is talking about buying, I'd leave all the stuff in if it's cost-competitive, because they'd be a valuable asset for combat use.

Regarding the lowered thrust, I'm not talking about just fighter type maneuvers, lowering thrust below what the a/c was designed for affects the entire envelope. Besides, what other engine would you put in there? F414 is already in US (N) inventory. Putting in another one will raise costs.

As far as a clean sheet design, if Gripen didn't exist then Boeing might still try and go that route. But, since the cost of development of an F for USAF is a small fraction of what it would cost to start from scratch and said design wouldn't be all that much better, why bother? In this case, assuming it can be delivered for a competitive price to the other trainers, the numbers have to favor the Swedish plane.

As far as stealthy goes, who needs that in a trainer? If you're going to use it as an aggressor aircraft (not a bad idea with the Gripen, for Navy as well) and want to train against a stealth aircraft, you can hang a specific transponder on it and program the fire control systems in the other aircraft not to "see" it. Voila! Instant simulated stealth!

 

[Steve Pace]

Why not build a whole bunch of NEW T-38s - to me the T-38 is the best ever transonic pilot trainer. -SP

 

[F-14D]

Why not build a whole bunch of NEW T-38s - to me the T-38 is the best ever transonic pilot trainer. -SP

Well, for one thing the US gov't doesn't own the design. For another, good as it is, it isn't as capable as later technology aircraft (plus its systems are getting harder to support because of their age). And finally, given what it would cots to recreate the production line tooling, reset up the line for it and the J85 (we can maintain the J85 through 2040, but not sure if we could build them anymore), you'd probably cost as much as one of the aircraft being proposed.

 

[Reaper]

It's worthy of note that the Super Hornet has not won a single competition.

Autralia!

 

[F-14D]

It's worthy of note that the Super Hornet has not won a single competition.

Autralia!

Actually, Australia was an export but not a competition in the classic sense. Australia wanted to retire its F-111s due to their airframe life and the perceived cost of keeping them in service. The replacement was to be the F-35, but it was decided an interim aircraft would be needed until what they really wanted was available. Since they already operated Classic Hornets, they studied whether they could leverage their Hornet experience to use the Super Bug in this role, and whether it would be cost effective as a stopgap. Their analysis decided "yes" to both questions, so they ordered directly.

AFAIK, the SH was not pitted against Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon, et al in an actual competition. So far, it has never won in a full competition when pitted against other aircraft .

 

[F-14D]

Great news for SAAB though. Maybe Boeing will fund the two seat version they couldn't afford to develop themselves.

Ya know, thinking on it this might not help SAAB in this area that much. Aerodynamically, the two seater wouldn't be that hard, after all, the NG Demonstrator is a two seater. Where SAAB really ran into money issues was the desire both for Sweden and exports that the F version have a decoupled rear cockpit/crew station ala Navy F-4s, the F-14, later Super Hornets, etc. With the new displays, revised architecture and integration, that got to be more expensive than they could swallow, given the expected market.

For the T-X mission, that isn't necessary and in fact could be a detriment, dual controls certainly being desired. At least for AF training missions, you'd want the aft cockpit to replicate the student on up front as much as possible, so I can't see Boeing kicking in money for a capability that won't help them in the competition.

OTOH, maybe a big AF order would raise the JAS 39's profile enough and generate sufficient cash flow that the new rear cockpit could be affordable for Sweden and other potential customers.

 

[GTX]

Boeing and Saab Sign Joint Development Agreement on T-X Family of Systems Training Competition
(Source; Boeing Co. and Saab AB; issued Dec. 6, 2013)

ST. LOUIS/STOCKHOLM --- Boeing and Saab AB have signed a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) to jointly develop and build a new advanced, cost-efficient T-X Family of Systems training solution for the upcoming competition to replace the U.S. Air Force's aging T-38 aircrew training system. The JDA, with Boeing as the prime contractor and Saab AB as primary partner, covers areas including design, development, production, support, sales and marketing.

"Teaming with Saab will bring together our companies' formidable technical expertise, global presence, and willingness to present an adaptable and affordable advanced pilot training solution," said Boeing Military Aircraft President Chris Chadwick. "Boeing and Saab form the foundation for what will be the strongest, most cost-effective industry team. Our comprehensive Family of Systems approach provides a new, purpose-built T-X aircraft supported by innovative training and logistics support to offer total-life-cycle cost benefits to the U.S. Air Force and taxpayers."

"Saab is proud to join with Boeing for the T-X competition, thus creating a highly capable team to deliver unprecedented value to the customer. We are sure this is the best way to supply affordable first-class trainers to the U.S. Air Force," said Saab President and CEO Håkan Buskhe. "We will invest in development of this completely new aircraft design over the coming years. This cooperation with Boeing is part of our strategic development and we confirm our long-term financial targets."

Boeing and Saab look forward to the upcoming acquisition process, which will lead to the customer awarding the contract. The U.S. Air Force T-X program will include aircraft and training that will prepare warfighters for the next 40 years. The Air Force plans to replace the T-38 with a new Advanced Pilot Training Family of Systems and about 350 aircraft, plus associated ground-based training systems and logistics and sustainment support.

The trainer solution from Boeing and Saab with other potential team members will be a completely new designed aircraft, built to meet the needs of the Air Force.


Swedish defense and security company Saab serves the global market with world-leading products, services and solutions ranging from military defense to civil security. Saab has operations and employees on all continents and constantly develops, adopts and improves new technology to meet customers’ changing needs. Saab is a $4 billion business with approximately 14,000 employees in about 35 countries.

A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is one of the world's largest defense, space and security businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions, and the world’s largest and most versatile manufacturer of military aircraft. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is a $33 billion business with 58,000 employees worldwide.

-ends-

 

[TomS]

The trainer solution from Boeing and Saab with other potential team members
will be a completely new designed aircraft, built to meet the needs of the Air
Force.

That's unexpected. Back in September, they were supposedly planning to offer Gripen. Do we think "new designed aircraft" is a matter of sematics, essentially an Americanized Gripen, the way the M-346 is a "new aircraft" rather than a Europeanized Yak-130? Or did Boeing go back to their earlier clean sheet design with assistance from SAAB?

 

[Grey Havoc]

That's unexpected. Back in September, they were supposedly planning to offer Gripen. Do we think "new designed aircraft" is a matter of sematics, essentially an Americanized Gripen, the way the M-346 is a "new aircraft" rather than a Europeanized Yak-130? Or did Boeing go back to their earlier clean sheet design with assistance from SAAB?

Maybe even something from the SAAB FS2020 stable, perhaps?

 

[Stargazer]

Would it not be appropriate for Textron to step in with a version of their current E530 Scorpion?

 

[TomS]

I don't think Scorpion has the acrobatic high-g performance required for T-X.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

AFAIK, the SH was not pitted against Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon, et al in an actual competition. So far, it has never won in a full competition when pitted against other aircraft .

Late response as I've just seen this. This isn't quite true. The RAAF's assessment of the bridging aircraft capability (which was the program the Super Hornet was ordered under) included a wide range of aircraft. Including those usual suspects. This 'competition' however was carried out in house based on the tender quality information the RAAF had gathered for the AIR 6000 project updated by the DSTO 'watching brief'. This assessed cost, capability, etc for the role and found the Super Hornet superior as both a combat platform and (importantly) a bridging platform. The bridging capability being twofold in retaining air combat competancy (ie leveraging the Hornet connection) and in bridging the technology gap to the F-35. In the later assessment the Block II Super Hornet was well above other options because it had the AESA and groovy fifth gen type avionics.

 

[Triton]

Model of BAE Systems/Northrop Grumman Hawk AJTS (Advanced Jet Training System) on display at the AFA Air Warfare Symposium 2013 in Orlando, Florida.

Source:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=494449453925266&set=pb.250121178358096.-2207520000.1386390915.&type=3&theater