martinbayer said:
FighterJock said:
I can't really see them chopping it up and throwing the resulting pieces onto a scrap heap.

Unfortunately I can - CF-105, anyone?

Martin

Yeah, I was just thinking about how long the YF-23s were left to rot off in the corner of Edwards.
 
Nice side view of Northrop N400.
 

Attachments

  • fr 11-2016-Boeing TX Trainer %285%29.jpg.8501010.jpg
    fr 11-2016-Boeing TX Trainer %285%29.jpg.8501010.jpg
    29 KB · Views: 639
Artist and journalist Karl Schwarz for the German magazine Flug Revue.
Link: http://www.flugrevue.de/militaerluftfahrt/kampfflugzeuge-helikopter/northrop-grumman-bietet-nicht-fuer-t-x-der-usaf-mit/712784
 
fightingirish said:
Artist and journalist Karl Schwarz for the German magazine Flug Revue.
Link: http://www.flugrevue.de/militaerluftfahrt/kampfflugzeuge-helikopter/northrop-grumman-bietet-nicht-fuer-t-x-der-usaf-mit/712784

Danke
 
Yes, just found searching for images of n400, but they labeled it as Boeing? Would love to see a 3-view or planform though.
 
Does anyone know whether they are following the fixed price developmental model on this like they did on the tanker? Or will it be cost plus developmental and fixed price procurement?
 
bring_it_on said:
Does anyone know whether they are following the fixed price developmental model on this like they did on the tanker? Or will it be cost plus developmental and fixed price procurement?

It looks like firm-fixed development, which definitely favors the T-50.
 
GTX said:
Safe money is still on the T-50 with LM.
Assuming its not just a contest to see who can kiss more orange butt, I think Boeing the the Swedes might surprise us.
 
Moose said:
GTX said:
Safe money is still on the T-50 with LM.
Assuming its not just a contest to see who can kiss more orange butt, I think Boeing the the Swedes might surprise us.

Depends on how much of their own money Boeing and Saab are willing to spend on development. There's no way that they'll be able to do it all with government money and be even remotely competitive to the T-50, which is already largely paid for.
 
Certainly, and hence NG's decision to bow out. But Boeing and Saab haven't left, which suggests they're not shrinking from spending the money.
 
There's a big potential market beyond T-X and Boeing and SAAB know if they stick to their guns they can get a slice of the market.
NG has other stealthier and unmanned projects on the go and have moved on from building relatively 'mundane' trainers and BAE Systems is very risk adverse when it comes to making new aircraft so no doubt both sets of shareholders weren't really too bothered about not competing to the finish line. Both companies are more systems orientated than airframe producers. Cynically, maybe NG only competed to be in with a chance of a revenue stream if B-21 hadn't gone their way and I doubt BAE ever saw the N400 as a Hawk successor.
 
BAE is also has the Dreadnought SSBNs and the FCAS coming up (the latter will keep their aeronautical staff busy).
 
Hood said:
There's a big potential market beyond T-X and Boeing and SAAB know if they stick to their guns they can get a slice of the market.

One that both the T-50 and M346 are already well involved with. Boeing/Saab had want to really have something outstanding if they wish to crack into that market as latecomers.
 
Anyone got this months Combat Aircraft? There is an interesting T-X supplement detailing the Boeing and Lockheed trainers as well as the trainers that dropped out, Leonardo and Northrop.
 
Hi,

http://aviationweek.com/defense/raytheon-out-leonardo-drs-touts-lower-cost-t-100?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20170324_AW-05_485&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_3&utm_rid=CPEN1000002229670&utm_campaign=9234&utm_medium=email&elq2=3c1fa108dea444f5a2ab33ee2db4362c
 
I'm in west Texas. Probably won't see that COMBAT AIRCRAFT for a while.

Outta curiosity, how many pages is that T-X supplement?
 
Hi,

http://aviationweek.com/military-trainers/sweden-eyeing-turboprop-trainer-if-boeingsaab-lose-t-x
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    201.4 KB · Views: 806
via Stephen Trimble
https://twitter.com/FG_STrim/status/876344161309478913
Surprise! Sierra Nevada reveals formerly secret Freedom Aircraft T-X trainer concept on chalet wall at #PAS17.
 

Attachments

  • DClmW8TXcAEChmd.jpg
    DClmW8TXcAEChmd.jpg
    328.2 KB · Views: 507
  • ca83f63a-b365-4679-b280-90bb0556b1b9.jpg
    ca83f63a-b365-4679-b280-90bb0556b1b9.jpg
    14.5 KB · Views: 487
SNC TX Proposal on AVWST
 

Attachments

  • AvWkSNC.jpg
    AvWkSNC.jpg
    106.3 KB · Views: 479
litzj said:
who will winthis competition? Is there any news about t-x?

recently, it is very quite

The teams have submitted their bids and most should have also submitted the technical data as well so it will be quiet for a while as the acquisition community goes through its process. Lockheed did however fly their T-X in for an air show in Dayton OH recently..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLa2RPFbfzI
 
bring_it_on said:
litzj said:
who will winthis competition? Is there any news about t-x?

recently, it is very quite

The teams have submitted their bids and most should have also submitted the technical data as well so it will be quiet for a while as the acquisition community goes through its process. Lockheed did however fly their T-X in for an air show in Dayton OH recently..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLa2RPFbfzI

Highly surprised that Boeing was not there too flying their T-X at the Dayton air show.
 
litzj said:
thx for your comments

Boeing's design is not matured yet

Probably, they are busy to fly test

Technical data have been submitted by Boeing to the program office. There is really little incentive for Boeing to be paying out of pocket for flight testing at the moment until a decision is made.

They may still continue testing but it will be no where as intense as what they were doing prior to their submissions. Not having the jet on display at Dayton or another US air show was a major screw up imho on part of Boeing.
 
Anybody seen NG's Model 400 lately? Any word if they'll continue further development?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom