Boeing Wins Again

"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn) 09/28/2018 at 11:25 • Filed to: wingspan, Planelopnik

0

19

(Boeing)

The US Air Force’s long-running !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! to find a replacement for the aging !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! jet trainer has come to an end, and Boeing, with its teammate Saab, has been named the winner. Boeing’s twin-tailed, single-engined T-X was pitted against Lockheed and Korea Air Industries who offered the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , while Italian firm Leonardo and their American subsidiary offered the T-100 ( !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! ). Both the Lockheed and Leonardo designs were already in production, while Boeing was the only manufacturer to offer a clean-sheet design. This is the third big win for Boeing, having recently received a contract to build the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! aerial refueling drone for the US Navy, as well as a replacement or the Air Force’s !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! helicopter that is used primarily to provide security at America’s nuclear missile silos.

(Boeing)

This contract has the potential to be a big money maker for Boeing. In addition to the 350 aircraft that the Air Force plans to order, there will almost certainly be international orders, and Boeing will likely also develop an armed variant. The Air Force contract also calls for as many as 50 simulators plus all the other parts and service that come along with any new jet. Saab has also stated that, should the Boeing entrant be selected, they intend to build a manufacturing plant in the US. Though the T-38 is getting very long in the tooth, having served for over 50 years, initial operations of so-far-unnamed T-X aren’t planned until 2024.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

For more stories about aviation, aviation history, aviators and airplane oddities, visit !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Ash78, voting early and often > ttyymmnn 09/28/2018 at 11:29

4

with its teammate Saab

“Listen up, men! You’ve made it this far and you may think you know how to fly pretty good . But can you find the ignition switch on this one? YOUR MOMMA AIN’T HERE TO HELP YOU NOW!”

ttyymmnn > Ash78, voting early and often 09/28/2018 at 11:37

1

I still think the only reason Boeing won is that the T-X has a twin tail. All modern jets must have two tails. 

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > ttyymmnn 09/28/2018 at 11:46

0

You might be on to something. Since most of our front line fighers have twin tails, there may be some unique handling characteristics that pilots would benefit from experiencing in a trainer.

ttyymmnn > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 09/28/2018 at 11:53

0

I’m no pilot, but I don’t think that is the reason. Planes like this basically fly themselves these days (meaning no disrespect to pilots). Even in the Texan II, a turboprop, the newbie pilots are not trained to deal with any aspects of propeller flight. They fly it like a jet.

No, my theory, which is entirely my own, is that AF brass like planes that look like planes. It’s why the YF-23 lost, it’s why the X-32 lost. They just looked too weird. Another reason (in my mind) is that the Lockheed and Leonardo jets looked too much like European fighters. Not American enough. This is probably all hooey, but it makes sense to me.

facw > ttyymmnn 09/28/2018 at 11:54

0

I get the sense that the Air Force laughed the T extron S corpion out of the room despite its twin-tail. It was pretty clearly a bad match for their requirements (for any requirements?) though.

ttyymmnn > facw 09/28/2018 at 12:00

0

Agreed on the Textron. It never had a chance, twin tails notwithstanding.

For Sweden > ttyymmnn 09/28/2018 at 12:05

0

Lockheed under Marillyn Hewson and losing.

Name a more i conic duo.

For Sweden > Ash78, voting early and often 09/28/2018 at 12:06

1

“Silly Americans, we are here to practice fighting wars, not actually fight wars!”

For Sweden > ttyymmnn 09/28/2018 at 12:06

0

Senators love big butts

For Sweden > ttyymmnn 09/28/2018 at 12:12

0

N382TX is a civilian-registered airplane

https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=382TX

When can I buy it

facw > ttyymmnn 09/28/2018 at 12:12

1

I mean the X-32 had lots of problems beyond its looks. Boeing never got anywhere near the performance the Air Force was looking for. I do think that if the F-35 didn’t look like a real fighter, they never would have shut down production of the F-22. It’s much easier to convince people it can stand in when it has the look.

T he T-50 looks like a baby F-16 , so I’m not sure why you think it looks European. I understand one big objection was the tacked-on aerial refueling capability, which I guess wasn’t great (and also uglied up the plane). I do wonder if the F-16 look did hurt it by making it appear last-gen.

As for the T-100, having Raytheon build some Russo-Italian aircraft was always a bit of a long shot.

Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. > ttyymmnn 09/28/2018 at 12:17

0

Nice to see Boeing get a win on the military side for a change.

Now, can I buy a surplus T-38 for use as a personal jet? I’ve loved that plane since I first saw it flying for the Thunderbirds back in the ‘70s and always wanted to own one.

Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. > ttyymmnn 09/28/2018 at 13:27

1

Here’s what I recall from my days at Hughes Aircraft in the defense division (radar and misses) : The X-32 was ugly as sin, a last-minute MD program that Boeing said was nothing like the final product that they would produce. I guess the AF took a look, bleached their collective eyes and assumed that if they were this far behind they had no hope of doing the project on time and on budget so they went with LockMart who proceeded to miss every budget and production milestone. Oops...

ttyymmnn > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 09/28/2018 at 13:29

1

One has to wonder what Boeing might have come up with if they’d had another year. But yeah, the X-32 was fugly. The F-35 won’t win any beauty contests either. 

Ash78, voting early and often > facw 09/28/2018 at 13:54

0

Weird, because what little I know about the Scorpion is that it’s actually in operational military service. Sounds like the best of both worlds and a plentiful market for the used ones.

But then again, even Macedonia knows to run from the CL ad “Used Textron Scorpion USAF trainer 50k hours on airframe NO LOWBALLERS EXCELLENT PLAIN!”

facw > Ash78, voting early and often 09/28/2018 at 14:08

1

Definitely not in use (I th ink they’ve built 4 prototypes). The ones that were in use were the KAI T-50:

and the Leonardo T-100 (basically an M-346, which itself is basically a Yak-130 ):

The new designs were the Boeing/Saab T-X:

The Textron Scorpion:

And the Northrop/Scaled Composites Model 400:

Ash78, voting early and often > facw 09/28/2018 at 14:13

1

Yep, sorry I misread my own googling...looks like a few air forces are in initial talks, but no firm orders/approvals on the Scorpion.

Turbineguy: Nom de Zoom > ttyymmnn 09/29/2018 at 21:45

0

X-32 was fugly AND goofy looking.

Turbineguy: Nom de Zoom > Ash78, voting early and often 09/29/2018 at 21:51

0

I couldn’t find any evidence of the Scorpion having been sold to anyone. Who do you think it is?