I didn't even realized the T-X was so long in development. I instantly fell in love with Northrop entry. What a cute little jet, shame Northrop retired. Boing and SAAB, how about that. The T-50 is far less a surprise.
Indeed, this was a stupid move by KAI. They were already arguably the front runner in this competition but now if they do win there will always be a shadow cast over the selection.Moose said:
With hearing protection in place of course.GTX said:My understanding is that LM was not part of this. It was KAI alone. Would love to have heard the discussion between LM and KAI though when it broke...
That´s for the light attack mission. They´re going for turboprops, not jets.kcran567 said:https://www.wearethemighty.com/air-force-cheap-lightweight-planes
2 days ago. AF wants cheap lightweight fighter to do things F-35 can't.
Still, it could be 'lip-service' for production of T-X prototype though they lose it.kcran567 said:Boeing/Saab said they would continue production even if they lose the T-x competition.
I think early on Northrop/Scaled said the same thing. There is going to be
A big need for those and the Scorpion because F-35 is too much for many
customers. I'm just speculating and hoping the n400 might still come back beyond T-x.
F-35 as top of a hi/lo mix with the the Super Tucano and turboprop at the very
Bottom of the lo mix.
Well the T-X would certainly be cheaper. If they're willing to pay for Gripens just buy more F-16s.LowObservable said:If you want a low-cost fighter with a wide mission spectrum, there's Gripen. I can't see a T-X derivative being any better.
T-50LowObservable said:Well the T-X would certainly be cheaper.
I sincerely doubt that.TomS said:So, Gripen and FA-50 cost basically the same.
Well, no. When you do that you get a MUCH higher price. Try $125 million a pop.TomS said:(I'm discounting the higher end of the Gripen range because when you see that big a variation it suggests that the higher number includes stuff like training, spares, and maintenance, not just a bare aircraft.)
That's why both (package and flyaway) are up there. If you disagree, how about YOU provide some recent flyaway sources for both.LowObservable said:So has ROK pitched the F/A-50 against Gripen?
When that happens... As it is, there are no grounds for a comparison. And AAFK (as any fule kno) a complete package can't be compared to flyaway.
Fair enough, but why go through the trouble of buying a trainer only to add all the bells and whistles? As I said earlier, may as well buy more F-16s. While a late model F-16 might have a somewhat higher flyaway cost than a Gripen, once you add in all the costs of adding a new type to the inventory (spares, training, maintenance, facilities, etc.) into the mix there is no compelling reason for a Gripen over more F-16s.LowObservable said:Third, no TX version will be in the same class as Gripen, on present evidence. When I see one with internal ECM, a proper radar, MRAAM integration &c, I may be convinced otherwise; and if you do start trying to stuff those features in a TX you will be pushing up against Gripen's cost.
http://www.sundaystandard.info/pick-fighter-jet-suitors-court-bdfLowObservable said:So has ROK pitched the F/A-50 against Gripen?
That's not really what I meant. I just used the F-16A to Block 60 comparison to illustrate what a T-50 to FA-50+ would look like._Del_ said:but I'd think the commonality value logistically would outweigh any cost savings in purchase costs for a wholly new type. Something like a F-16D with complete airframe and powerplant commonality with the Block 50, but without the bells and whistles for MRAAM, all-weather operations, etc.
In May, they were saying summer, maybe August. But I believe they need to get a request out for final pricing data and I don't think that's happened yet, so it would have to be September at the earliest now.Deino said:Maybe I missed it ... but is there already a given date to announce the winner?
The second source make sense. I don't recall the Air Force making procurement announcements like this at industry events. And officials never have problems "ducking" questions about upcoming contract awards.With the U.S. Air Force having received final bids from industry, the service is now poised to award a contract for its 350-plane next-generation trainer fleet in just a few weeks.
An Air Force official, speaking on background, said the service expects to award the contract by the end of the fiscal year — in other words, before Sept. 30. Many have speculated that the days before the Air Force Association’s annual conference, being held Sept. 17-19 outside of Washington, would be a potential time for an announcement to come.
However, a source with knowledge of the situation said the current plan is to make the announcement after AFA concludes, likely the week of Sept. 24. If true, it could create an awkward environment at the event, where senior leaders will have to duck commenting on the soon-to-come T-X winner.