T-X Thread

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

airforces_freak

Banned

  • Posts: 458
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2011, 03:26

Unread post01 Feb 2017, 17:06

I really didn't think SNC/TAI with their twin engined (Williams FJ44-4M) Freedom Trainer would stand a chance in this race but after hearing news of the companies dropping out from the tender I think this partnership now has a chance. They are offering the cheapest alternative out there: the use of commercial engines.
Offline
User avatar

archeman

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 693
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post02 Feb 2017, 18:32

airforces_freak wrote:I really didn't think SNC/TAI with their twin engined (Williams FJ44-4M) Freedom Trainer would stand a chance in this race but after hearing news of the companies dropping out from the tender I think this partnership now has a chance. They are offering the cheapest alternative out there: the use of commercial engines.


How much does it hurt their offer to not have a prototype flying?
Daddy why do we have to hide? Because we use VI son, and they use windows.
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1799
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post02 Feb 2017, 19:22

NG hasn't publicly came out refusing to bid, correct? They can sell off their effort or partner it out. Sunk costs of a prototype may be trivial to some, but they have an aversion to throwing away money.
Offline
User avatar

durahawk

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 489
  • Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 20:35

Unread post02 Feb 2017, 20:35

airforces_freak wrote:I really didn't think SNC/TAI with their twin engined (Williams FJ44-4M) Freedom Trainer would stand a chance in this race but after hearing news of the companies dropping out from the tender I think this partnership now has a chance. They are offering the cheapest alternative out there: the use of commercial engines.


Ummm... no. Two commercial engines that don't have any established logistical support whatsoever within DoD are not automatically cheaper than a single F404 that the military has been supporting, maintaining and overhauling for decades.
Offline

airforces_freak

Banned

  • Posts: 458
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2011, 03:26

Unread post02 Feb 2017, 23:15

archeman wrote:
airforces_freak wrote:I really didn't think SNC/TAI with their twin engined (Williams FJ44-4M) Freedom Trainer would stand a chance in this race but after hearing news of the companies dropping out from the tender I think this partnership now has a chance. They are offering the cheapest alternative out there: the use of commercial engines.


How much does it hurt their offer to not have a prototype flying?


One is being assembled as we speak. Aviation Week reported this a few months ago. We should see a flying prototype in the coming months with a few surprises according to SNC: "The aircraft incorporates “live, virtual and constructive” training elements, provisions for aerial refueling, data links and communication radios woven into a high-performance aircraft with a fifth-generation cockpit, sensor suite and avionics"
Offline

airforces_freak

Banned

  • Posts: 458
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2011, 03:26

Unread post02 Feb 2017, 23:31

durahawk wrote:
airforces_freak wrote:I really didn't think SNC/TAI with their twin engined (Williams FJ44-4M) Freedom Trainer would stand a chance in this race but after hearing news of the companies dropping out from the tender I think this partnership now has a chance. They are offering the cheapest alternative out there: the use of commercial engines.


Ummm... no. Two commercial engines that don't have any established logistical support whatsoever within DoD are not automatically cheaper than a single F404 that the military has been supporting, maintaining and overhauling for decades.


The Williams FJ44-4M was also proposed by Cessna in its Model 526 CitationJet Trainer for the United States Joint Primary Aircraft Training System program in 1993. I don't think it would be more expensive to support, maintenance and overhaul the Williams FJ44-4M should the SNC/TAI Freedom Trainer be selected. In fact, SNC has stated that its offer will include support, maintenance and overhaul supply chains.

Image
Offline

huggy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 580
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2004, 07:39

Unread post04 Feb 2017, 20:38

vilters wrote:OK, now a serious question from me/

Why is Northrop not "reviving" its F-20 into a new trainer version?

Talons, as all other F-5 airframe versions are known for their durability, reliability, and maintainability.
Exactly what you want/need for a trainer.

Add the F-20 improvements, new engine and avionix and get an upgraded version of a proven training system.


What is it about you guys that are "F-20 disciples"? Do you really understand what is needed in our next trainer? Let it go already.

My calendar says it is 2017. Let's get a good product that isn't based on a 50+ year old design.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7206
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post05 Feb 2017, 00:36

huggy wrote:
vilters wrote:OK, now a serious question from me/

Why is Northrop not "reviving" its F-20 into a new trainer version?

Talons, as all other F-5 airframe versions are known for their durability, reliability, and maintainability.
Exactly what you want/need for a trainer.

Add the F-20 improvements, new engine and avionix and get an upgraded version of a proven training system.


What is it about you guys that are "F-20 disciples"? Do you really understand what is needed in our next trainer? Let it go already.

My calendar says it is 2017. Let's get a good product that isn't based on a 50+ year old design.

LOL.. just like the the girl who "got away" way back when... she'd look a bit dated nowadays for sure.. :mrgreen:
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 582
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post09 Feb 2017, 15:22

Leonardo to offer T-100 training system for T-X program

Don't see how this turns out for them, especially given how Raytheon apparently thought the cost was several million too high.
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1294
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post10 Feb 2017, 02:06

rheonomic wrote:Leonardo to offer T-100 training system for T-X program

Don't see how this turns out for them, especially given how Raytheon apparently thought the cost was several million too high.


Don't know why they keep wasting their time. We're not going to get a Yak-130 clone.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2071
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post10 Feb 2017, 16:58

huggy wrote:
vilters wrote:OK, now a serious question from me/

Why is Northrop not "reviving" its F-20 into a new trainer version?

Talons, as all other F-5 airframe versions are known for their durability, reliability, and maintainability.
Exactly what you want/need for a trainer.

Add the F-20 improvements, new engine and avionix and get an upgraded version of a proven training system.


What is it about you guys that are "F-20 disciples"? Do you really understand what is needed in our next trainer? Let it go already.

My calendar says it is 2017. Let's get a good product that isn't based on a 50+ year old design.


It's because the F-20 really was a world beater* Two seat versions with combat capability would be invaluable after the stealth birds establish air superiority. In addition to those 200 or so F-15C's and 1,000 F-16's, you could fall back on XXX number of TF-20's. Flying with the AIM-9x and AMRAAM, they'd be formidable opponents. Small, lightweight and with a thrust to weight ratio of around 1:1 opens up all kinds of possibilities.

An F-20 with AMRAAM/9x's would be one dangerous foe. It also had/has robust air to ground (and even air to sea) capability. With $ scarce and every dollar counting, I'd want a combat capable trainer. Regardless if it's the F-20 or some other aircraft..

*Considering cost per flight hour, time to scramble and life cycle costs. Not only that, but the F-404 is very reliable, notoriously stingy on fuel consumption and (in the F-20), provides plenty of power.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7206
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post10 Feb 2017, 23:07

T-X isn't even officially calling for an Aggressor variant, let alone a Fighter variant. The AF wants to transition away from 4Gens as quickly as possible so building a large fleet of modernized F-20s runs counter to this.The F-20 lost to the F-16, it's day has come and gone.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

huggy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 580
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2004, 07:39

Unread post17 Feb 2017, 15:14

Mixelflick,
Please... put down the crack pipe.
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 582
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post14 Mar 2017, 23:45

"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Offline
User avatar

pmi

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2011, 09:12

Unread post15 Mar 2017, 17:44

rheonomic wrote:Textron's out.


Just chaff being separated. This became a two horse race the moment Northrop left the field.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests