Yes. But that’s an open door for the replacement of the Goshawk. Look at it, you’d better use a 346 than any of both US design under that form.
Reverse E: No, simply that it makes things more difficult for competitors and claims (in my expe this has in effect zero value).
No Buts! [ USAF have already explicitly declared that they dont want the selection process hampered by divergent requirements, like possible agressor etc.] ….or USN trainer!
The Goosehawk was a good idea but it suffered from basicaly redesigning (structually) the whole aircraft again, adding speedbrakes, tailhook etc, and in doing so negated the original value of the Hawk. I belive that USN will not do the same (misstake?) again. They will probably buy them in such numbers anyway that they could justify a new design just like USAF did. Besides slow and steady CV landings will be the priority rather than high mach numbers and turn rate. But could use the same SUBSYSTEMS from T-X in a compleatly different platform. (IMO how F-35C should realy have been designed)
IMO technically all the bidders would probably be able to reach USAF performance demands. But Pentagon and Senate politics is always the largest factor. LM already have the F-35 so no point in giving them even more money an jobs. Textron Scorpion is not realy what USAF is looking for. Boeing is probably not a favored company after the whole tanker buisness debacle. Besides they have other platforms to sell/are selling so they can make due. Although the T-100 shows promise technically why would the pentagon reward Raytheon when other OEM’s need the jobs more. NG have the B-21 which is good for them but almost puts them in the same seat as LM. Hmmm lets see after the presidental election how the situation is.
Sign In
