What's /k/s thoughts on thew Boeing T-X? https://www.yo

Boeing and Saab were pretty quick to get it off the ground. Probably lot of work done as preliminary studies as privately funded programs on last decade or so. If performance is right and it gets selected by USAF (and later on by other branches of US military) it will have bright future ahead.

File: northrop-t-38-talon.jpg (53KB, 1200x857px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1200x857px

why tho

File: 303321_T-X_1920x1200w-001_FNL.jpg (2MB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1200px

>>34693907

T-38's are old as hell and starting to fall apart.

>>34691943
Looks good, but the Korean one (T-50) is probably going to replace the T-38, unless they don't let us build them in the states.

>>34691943
It looks like I can fuck it.

>>34693969

T-50 is likely heavier than Boeing T-X, that makes it more expensive to operate. Also another factor is the fact that it is Lockheed product as far as USAF is concerned, yet another major deal to Lockheed would give them effective monopoly on fast jets once Navy F/A-18 contracts for Boeing conclude. That may complicate any future fighter programs as Lockheed would be only company with recent experience in building, designing and maintaining those.

The problems for T-50 on international market are two fold. It is too good plane for trainer. For smaller air forces attack and multi role fighter variants are risk to higher performance fighter procurement.

File: 4BK6OOLMQJGG5LD5J6GGDBSJJI.gif (51KB, 675x584px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 675x584px

The other problem for KAI with T-50 is US export controls, that is price they pay for Lockheed assistance in designing the plane. That assistance also forced them to lower their performance goal to level where it wouldn't be serious threat to F-16 sales.

File: uh-72a-lakota_010-ts600.jpg (30KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 600x400px

Just what we need, more unproven European aircraft to replace things that don't need replacing.

>>34693907
That doesn't have a user interface that'll be familiar to F-35 pilots.

>>34695850
Lockheed wasn't even contacted for RFI or RFPs for the F/A-XX Program though.

>>34691943
WA WE wuh wo wuh wa wuh wo wuh wahhh WUH WAHH

>>34691943
I hope Boeing comes out with something new that gets a military contract.

Tired of making the same parts that we've been making since the 90s/earlier.

>>34696173
>>Just what we need, more unproven European aircraft to replace things that don't need replacing.

Saab is junior partner in T-X, it is more like permanent foothold for Boeing for T-X sales in Europe once Europeans start replace their current trainers. Ones that may get fucked Boeing by this are Leonardo, BAE and KAI. Given that BAE, Northrop-Grumman and Textron are out of T-X for good that leaves Leonardo, Boeing/Saab and Lockheed/KAI competing for the deal. Leonardo currently has rather minor presence in US, so their chances of winning are marginal at the best.

Production of T-38 ended in 1972. Lifetime extensions cannot be done forever and there simply isn't room in airframe for major upgrades, add more advanced avionics, there is suddenly need for more electric power.

Same shit was going on with UH-1H/V and OH-58 when those were replaced with UH-72. Mostly old as fuck helicopters or abused as fuck helicopters used in roles where UH-60 is simply too expensive to procure and operate.

>>34696536
>Lockheed wasn't even contacted for RFI or RFPs for the F/A-XX Program though.

The thing with that program is that it still in relatively early stage, they are aiming for deliveries in 2030's. Also, Lockheed has angle on this, if F/A-XX gets delayed, it probably means more F-35C orders.

>>34696621
What is so hard about just converting more bell 206's?
But yeah that is a good argument.

File: CqQdrX0VIAAyUS0.jpg (82KB, 1199x466px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1199x466px

>>34691943
I prefered the Northrop Grumman concept. I would have prefered it even more it if it was a delta. Sadly NG cancelled it or something.