OT-The new Boeing-SAAB TX

[StormILM]

This would possibly make an interesting FSX/P3D subject, the new Boeing-SAAB TX Jet Trainer prototype. It's powered by a single GE F404 Engine and it uses other common components as well. Pretty cool looking bird!
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=43007&stc=1

[Sundog]

I also like the new Northrop-Grumman design as well, that was designed by Scaled Composites (NG owns Scaled Composites).

[MustangL2W]

One of the real problems our Country and the DoD has is the fact that through consolidation, with only 3 real defense contractors anymore. There is a serious lack of design innovation in weapons systems today. Three Big fish swallowed up all the little fish and now the pool is so shallow we seem to be missing the amazing technology leaps and innovation that companies like North American, McDonnell-Douglas, Grumman, Northrop and General Dynamics once afforded us. Lots of designers, Engineers and Competition had our Warfighters leading the World and kept us safe at home. I'd personally like to see this Boeing Design win. I think it brings to the table the answers the Air Force is looking for. Of course it hasn't flown yet.....but like they say, "If it looks right...it Fly's right" and that my friends, is one "Hot" looking Jet!

[Victory103]

First glance I saw some resemblance to the ATG Javelin private jet. The T-50 looks like a mini Viper, and this one similar to a baby Hornet.

[strykerpsg]

Nice looking bird! Looks like a merge of the JASDF F1 front end, F-23 tail and Saab Gripen mid section. I would buy one of these for FSX (Tac Packed of course), P3D or DCS.

[Sundog]

First glance I saw some resemblance to the ATG Javelin private jet. The T-50 looks like a mini Viper, and this one similar to a baby Hornet.

The T-50 is a mini-viper, as it was designed by Lockheed-Martin Ft. Worth (Where the F-16 was designed) for the South Koreans.

The real breakthrough for the Boeing design is their, "Black Diamond," program, which greatly lowers manufacturing costs. Although, you guys might get a kick out of knowing that the landing gear on the Boeing T-X is from the F-16. ;)

[Flyboy208]

Looks like it has a mini version of the Hornet stabilators as well as a very similar tail structure to the F-22. Mike :running:

[Mach3DS]

Saw thiis this morning! I also get an Aviation WEEK email everyday which described in a little more detail this aircraft. Will jave 2 hard points under each wing and a centerline hardpoints. Also has space for future AA refueling. This one really looks good. Very nice lines. Northrops looks slow IMO. LM offering looks OK but I like the Boeing lines much more. They nailed it. My 02 cents.

[StormILM]

Now that the BAE Hawk is out of the running, what's left is the LM/KAI T-50A, Boeing SAAB TX, Raytheon T-100(Alenia Aermacchi M-346/Yak-130), and the Northrop Grumman entry (which takes the place of the Hawk). Of these 4, the T-50A and the M-346 are up and running & proven designs whereas the other two haven't entered flight test phase yet. Of the 4, I believe the final two will be the T-50A and the Boeing-SAAB TX but from all that I've been hearing from AF Brass in my family, the T-50A has a huge lead on the other 3 entries and is already heavily favored by the Air Force due to it's features/performance and overall reliability and logistical stability. That's not to mention that the A-50 light attack variant may end up being adopted in addition to the training variant.

[rpetty]

StormILM, I agree that the LM/Kia T-50A is the better choice when considering that it's afterburner and weapons carriage potential makes it a good choice for the TX winner (looking from an after-TX market sale potential as an Aggressor and third-world light fighter), however, the specs for the TX's maneuverability AFAIK are obtainable by a non-AB A-4 Skyhawk and the program's focus is the training market with significant cost savings, not after market potential. Boeing/SAAB's aircraft is a clean-sheet design specifically targeting the TX requirements. It's reduced-touch (Black Diamond) manufacturing plan with "no-hard tooling" or no stands and jigs that are common of aircraft construction is thought to be a strong point for Boeing. LM is focusing on the integrated systems-training element of the spec, and considering that they build the two front line fighters (i.e. F-22 and F-35) they will most likely have a lead on that end. The specs also give additional points for the following:

1) High G Maneuvers
2) High AOA
3) Terrain Warning and Avoidance
4) GBTS Connectivity
5) Aerial Refueling Subsystem Full Integration
6) Targeting Pod System Simulation
7) Ground Support Station Connectivity
8) Turn Around Time

Northrop, with its years of T-38/F-5 experience, will definitely be a contender, and their design is focused on the specs. The M-346 is truly a foreign design that has been excepted by the Israeli, Polish, and Singapore AF's making it a proven and excepted training design with sustained G performance called out in the TX specs.

All in all I think it will come down to the Boeing/SAAB and LM/Kia designs. The other aircraft IMHO have either little growth potential or potentially constrained by a non-TX spec design. And if politics are a factor (and they always seem to be), with only three major airframe primes in the US, Boeing has racked up the commercial plane market, NG has the bombers (i.e. B-2 and the new B-21) and Lockheed the fighters (F-22 and F-35). Considering this, with the addition of its performance, it looks like LM's contract to lose.

It'll be an interesting fly-off!

[Sundog]

Saw thiis this morning! I also get an Aviation WEEK email everyday which described in a little more detail this aircraft. Will jave 2 hard points under each wing and a centerline hardpoints. Also has space for future AA refueling. This one really looks good. Very nice lines. Northrops looks slow IMO. LM offering looks OK but I like the Boeing lines much more. They nailed it. My 02 cents.

Just an FYI, the center line hardpoint is for a travel pod only.

[Mach3DS]

The Boeing version has AB.

<iframe src="//players.brightcove.net/800000612001/HkfKZsVmQ_default/index.html?videoId=5122863009001" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe>

[Sundog]

StormILM, I agree that the LM/Kia T-50A is the better choice when considering that it's afterburner and weapons carriage potential makes it a good choice for the TX winner (looking from an after-TX market sale potential as an Aggressor and third-world light fighter), however, the specs for the TX's maneuverability AFAIK are obtainable by a non-AB A-4 Skyhawk and the program's focus is the training market with significant cost savings, not after market potential. Boeing/SAAB's aircraft is a clean-sheet design specifically targeting the TX requirements. It's reduced-touch (Black Diamond) manufacturing plan with "no-hard tooling" or no stands and jigs that are common of aircraft construction is thought to be a strong point for Boeing. LM is focusing on the integrated systems-training element of the spec, and considering that they build the two front line fighters (i.e. F-22 and F-35) they will most likely have a lead on that end. The specs also give additional points for the following:

1) High G Maneuvers
2) High AOA
3) Terrain Warning and Avoidance
4) GBTS Connectivity
5) Aerial Refueling Subsystem Full Integration
6) Targeting Pod System Simulation
7) Ground Support Station Connectivity
8) Turn Around Time

Northrop, with its years of T-38/F-5 experience, will definitely be a contender, and their design is focused on the specs. The M-346 is truly a foreign design that has been excepted by the Israeli, Polish, and Singapore AF's making it a proven and excepted training design with sustained G performance called out in the TX specs.

All in all I think it will come down to the Boeing/SAAB and LM/Kia designs. The other aircraft IMHO have either little growth potential or potentially constrained by a non-TX spec design. And if politics are a factor (and they always seem to be), with only three major airframe primes in the US, Boeing has racked up the commercial plane market, NG has the bombers (i.e. B-2 and the new B-21) and Lockheed the fighters (F-22 and F-35). Considering this, with the addition of its performance, it looks like LM's contract to lose.

It'll be an interesting fly-off!

With regard to the fly-off I don't think the T-100 will win because it's basically a version of the Russian Yak-130 and the Chinese have a similar trainer, the L-15. I don't see the USAF going the "Me Too" route. I think Northrop's design will be the lowest cost design and meet the basic specs and that combination could make it difficult for the competition to compete with on the cost/performance ratio. The T-50, while a proven design, I think will be too costly and suffer from overkill; i.e.- it's over kill for the mission specification. The Boeing design, I think as you said, is designed for the aggressor side of the mission specs, but as a result of their application of their "Black Diamond" program, I think it's cost will be low enough to be a threat to the Northrop-Grumman design.

Given that the NG and Boeing designs were designed to the specs, I think they have the distinct advantage over the competition. Also, the DOD isn't happy at all with LM's performance on the F-35 program, so barring any kind of massive failure by NG or Boeing, I don't think LM's chances of winning are that strong. I think this is Boeing's too lose, over all, as their plane is designed for both the T-X mission and the aggressor, to the specs, and they need the work. If NG and Boeing come out close in the competition, I haven't any doubt it will be given to Boeing due spreading the work around.

[JensOle]

One of the real problems our Country and the DoD has is the fact that through consolidation, with only 3 real defense contractors anymore. There is a serious lack of design innovation in weapons systems today. Three Big fish swallowed up all the little fish and now the pool is so shallow we seem to be missing the amazing technology leaps and innovation that companies like North American, McDonnell-Douglas, Grumman, Northrop and General Dynamics once afforded us. Lots of designers, Engineers and Competition had our Warfighters leading the World and kept us safe at home. I'd personally like to see this Boeing Design win. I think it brings to the table the answers the Air Force is looking for. Of course it hasn't flown yet.....but like they say, "If it looks right...it Fly's right" and that my friends, is one "Hot" looking Jet!

Capitalism at work...

There are simply not enough new aircraft programs around to keep 10 different aviation companies with work so I think the consolidation is the only way for keeping the aviation companies alive. Back in the 60's there were probably 10 different fighter programs going on at any particular time, enough work for keeping the aviation industry which had boomed during the war years alive.

Today we are lucky to see 2-3 new fighter programs over a 30 year time period for all 3 US services. For bombers there is probably only going to be one for the next 50 years.. Simply not enough work for all these famous companies.

[Sundog]

Capitalism at work...

There are simply not enough new aircraft programs around to keep 10 different aviation companies with work so I think the consolidation is the only way for keeping the aviation companies alive. Back in the 60's there were probably 10 different fighter programs going on at any particular time, enough work for keeping the aviation industry which had boomed during the war years alive.

Today we are lucky to see 2-3 new fighter programs over a 30 year time period for all 3 US services. For bombers there is probably only going to be one for the next 50 years.. Simply not enough work for all these famous companies.

Right now there are three primes in the U.S. with regard to combat aircraft. The DOD might let it go down to two. When I graduated in Aero Engineering in the late 80's there were around six or seven. We've only had two engine manufacturers for a while, but they (the DOD) screwed the pooch on the F-135 (The F-35 engine) by allowing it to be sole source, and now P&W sets the price at whatever they want since there isn't any competition. This has been a major point of contention regarding the pricing on the F-35.

[JensOle]

The engine story for the F-35 sure was just a short time save and not a wise move for the future.