Alright, what unfolds from here?
>>65233282Last two standing are the M-346 from Leonardo, partnered with Textron for US production. Or a new cleansheet design from General Atomics and Northrop Grumman
>>65233282drones and missiles, Trump declared emperor of america and Mexico turned to a latina province with chemicals in the water that turn the people into women, trannies being a military operation to test this. It's just rabies ''shell'' with CRISPR bacterial load inside, it reprograms every cell in ones body and with the rabies, the mind for programmed behaviour. Amazon would handle the patients while they go through latinoficiation. The brown problem would be solved while the elite have harems of obedient Latina women to marry and reproduce with
>>65233324Take meds
>>65233290It would be pretty crazy if the US selected the M-346 which would mean the US, Russia and China all basically using the same trainer
https://aviationweek.com/defense/sierra-nevada-corp-tai-team-offer-freedom-trainer-t-xSierra Nevada and Turkish Aerospace Industries offer this
FA-50N
>>65233358Nope SNC partnered with NG/General Atomics >>65233290
>>65233377Lockheed dropped out a few months ago
>>65233326well; They could also reintroduce the F-106 and miniature F-89s for drones, imagine a small fixed winged dronelet firing rockets going pew pew while sending a signal through the the fibre cable to wrap it around and hang the operatranny commanding the enemy drone. The F-106 on the other hand would have retard strong engines and be made out of depleted uranium lined metal for strength and fun. The plane would ideally travel in a vacuum in high speed regimes, using the sheer amount of air sucked by the engines to dick slap the surrounding, thus manoeuvring by dicking around. Achieving Mach 7, the F-1006 could then launch a hypersonic nuclear AIM-9000 to destroy the enemy missiles midair. Upon visage of the combat footage, the average homosexual or transvestite would be driven to tears, shitting and coughing, wishing for God to bless America with its last breath
>>65233358Nope, Turkish A. proposed the Hurjet but no american company wanted to be their co-partner so it's not in the bid.
>>65233290>>65233282I wouldn't be surprised if Leonardo pulls out as well. They are already receiving plenty of orders internationally, with the biggest possible in the future coming from GCAP partner nations like the UK and Japan. The Navy doesn't even know what they want but they still ask absurd requirements for their engines (hence why both boeing and the koreans dropped out) and a fixed price (around 12m which is impossible) on top of possible future expansion in the case they want to reintroduce FCLP). There is no reason for Leonardo to enter that mess when the majority of the net profit would go towards local US production seeing they already breached the NA market with Canada, a possible future partner or customer of GCAP.
>>65233482>JapanJapan will go the F-2 route and produce it under license most likely
>>65233482GCAP isn’t going to be under $250mil per airframe. Canada is never buying that.
>>65233951If Canada is allowed to join they will definetly get a lower price. It all depends on what happens now that FCAS is dead.
>>65233282>Alright, what unfolds from here?all combat aircraft become (pic related)
>>65233878>>65233951>GCAP isn’t going to be under $250mil per airframe. Canada is never buying that.It might be for Japan/Italy since they'll be the ones doing the primary manufacturing.But for everyone else it'll probably be pushing $300-350M.
>>65233972talking about pricing now is pointless. there is zero data available to even estimate what the final unit price will be.
>>65233975you're no fun
>>65233290>M-346I've seen it perform once in Austria. Waay too noisy
>>65233975To achieve the desired ranges on conventional engines it’s going to be in the weight class of an F-111 roughly, especially with some of the payload options they’ve talked about. That means the airframe cost alone is going to be approaching the unit cost of an F-35. Then you get into all your systems, next generation radar, CCA control systems, presumably some kind of next gen IRST, two engines instead of one on the F-35 meaning the cost there is also doubled. Then the three countries making it all need their industries to turn a profit. I’m being generous putting the floor a $250 million, the other guy saying north of $300 million is probably a lot closer to a reasonable cost. It can’t be a sixth generation if it’s going to cost under $200 million, at that point it would struggle to be much of an improvement over current service fighters.
>>65234005there is no existing industrial base to produce any of that in the first place, so its a moot point right thereeurope hasnt designed an indigenous fighter jet engine in like 42 years or something
>>65233324Well, ok then.
>>65233324>harems of obedient Latina women to marry and reproduce withGo on...
>>65234027Japan has the industrial base for it.They literally built and flew a scale demonstrator in like 2015.Also italy has the majority of the industrial base due to the F-35 FACO.
>>65233482>possible future expansion in the case they want to reintroduce FCLPI think this is 99% of it. CNATRA is trying to back peddle the no FCLP thing or the "new" FCLP is magic carpet to landing, not the low approach only thing they mentioned. So there were still be fclp type syllabus events just not called that because they are quite a bit different than "regular" fclp. I'm pretty sure that's what is going on.
>>65234054in that case then the only suitable trainer is the one by a company that exist only on paper and hasn't even moved even into the CAD phase. They'll be lucky to have a prototype by 2035.
>>65234043Japan, UK and Italy all have F-35 FACOs and were early partners of the F-35 programs. If there's someone outside of the US that can make a 6th gen it's them.
>>65234189The UK doesn't and has never had an F-35 FACO.
>>65233282>Boeing dropsGOOD GRIEF NOT AGAIN
Let me guess, you need more?
>>65233994>twin jet engine>Waay too noisy
>>65233282What was in the latest request of information that made 90% of competitors drop out? Wouldn't such a big deal be a boon for anyone who wins?
>>65233282lmao
>>65233878Japan has their own trainer, don't they? Why would they need to go to someone else for a new trainer?
>>65237297Their own trainer is old as shit.Current rumor is it'll be quid pro quo trade, M-346's for P-1 maritime patrol craft.
>>65237297>not required to perform field carrier landing practice >not required to perform actual carrier landings>Navy wants the plane to be cheap to fly and maintain>Along with it being a "modern digital platform">Price for the competition is capped at 2.7 billion>Overall value will be 10 billionThat's really about it outside of the need to help familiarize new pilots with 4th. 5th and 6th gen flight characteristics and capabilities. The only people left are the Leonardo/Beechcraft M-346 and the Sierra Nevada/NG clean sheet designed "Freedom Trainer">Wouldn't such a big deal be a boon for anyone who wins?Lockheed is already over stretched with their existing contracts and I think the headaches involving the F35 has soured LOTS of people in the military aviation field. Boeing had said that they're pulling out to focus on the F47 and the F/A-XX competition, but I think the price cap/overall value is what made them drop out. From a layman's perspective, the Freedom Trainer seems to be the best fit (because they're going hard into cheaper flight/maintenance costs as well as it being built with carrier landings in mind) but the Leonardo one is the only one that actually exists currently so the navy might just go for that because they seem deadset on no longer using trainer aircraft to train pilots on carrier landings
>>65237372woops, meant to reply to >>65236382I also want to say that this whole competition has been filled to the brim with companies buddying up with someone else. Lockheed partnered up with the Koreans to offer a US built T-50, Textron is partnering up with Leonardo to offer a US built M-346, and Sierra Nevada is partnering up with Northrop and General Atomics (among many others) for an entirely new trainer while Boeing was the only one who was going at it alone. But I think what really matters is that the winner is capable of pumping out the roughly 150 new trainers relatively quickly>>65237331For some reason I thought Japan had plans to design/build their next trainer
>>65237391>For some reason I thought Japan had plans to design/build their next trainerThat's an option, as well as a japanese produced version of the T-7A.MHI proposed the T-X.Italy is bringing the M-346 and hoping to use it in trade for the P-1 deal.There is also talk about the UK also adopting the M-346 which would allow all 3 GCAP partner nations to share the same training pipeline and consolidate their software/training under a single training airframe.
>>65237331A P-1 is more expensive than a trainer.
>>65237758Anon, they're not going to do a 1:1 trade...
>>65237372You forgot the part about how the latest navy rfp wants engines that will have 90% mission capabilities at no extra cost of maintenance during the first 5 years of operations, they want safety levels higher than the modifies gripen engines while also leaving the path open to a possible future structural modification of the airframes. Oh and they want everything to be strictly under 12m dollars per plane despite the 2 cheapest entries, the FA-50 and M-346 both costing around double that. Also free magic carpet integration within the aircraft for FCLP to waveoff.There is zero chance Leonardo and Sierra Nevada will stay in the race, any day they'll both tell the navy to fuck off.
>>65237640>There is also talk about the UK also adopting the M-346 which would allow all 3 GCAP partner nations to share the same training pipeline and consolidate their software/training under a single training airframe.At this point they should just update the 346 with japan and start producing it as an update. The Mitsubishi T-X already is a carbon copy of the 346.
>>65237372>the Leonardo one is the only one that actually exists currentlySierra nevada could probably make a flying prototype in a year and be in LRIP in 2 if they were given the money. They made the scorpion before.
>>65237640>There is also talk about the UK also adopting the M-346 which would allow all 3 GCAP partner nations to share the same training pipeline and consolidate their software/training under a single training airframe.The UK will never be able to finance GCAP. They won't have to worry about a trainer.
>>65233282>>65233482>>65237372>>65237768
>>65237768I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the Beechcraft/Leonardo does not get picked, mostly because of Beechcraft being infamous for pushing politicians to force the SOCOM/Navy to pick them over the platforms that they want I think ultimately the USN will go with Sierra Nevada as I think the entire Pentagon despises Beechcraft for the shit they keep pulling>>65237781No, you're thinking of the Textron Scorpion which is a "Light Fighter" jet aircraft. The SNC Scorpion is a prop driven ISR plane. That all being said, with how much the B-21 is said to be ahead of schedule I don't doubt that a SNC/NG led trainer could be pumped out relatively quickly.>>65237791Let's also not forget that its the fucking navy's fault for the current state of its surface vessel procurement disasters
>>65237785Japan just invested about £18B in the UK, £9B in dual-use tech related R&D that is GCAP adjacent, and then another £9B for green energy infrastructure.So japan buys future UK green energy profits and tech manufacturing, as well as injects enough fresh capital into the UK that they can now afford to properly fund GCAP.Only japan would come up with such a polite way to simultaneously tell an ally they're too poor, bail them out, while also making a profit for themselves, and doing so in a way that makes it basically impossible to be mad at them for it.
>>65237819B-21 isn’t really ahead of schedule though, the original plan had it in service by now. Granted a couple year slip isn’t terrible considering Covid, but it’s not as well run of a program as it’s being presented as. Northrop has also lost at this point around a billion dollars on the program if I’m remembering the last couple years of earning calls right, with a fair amount of the production acceleration money recently approved being a way to try and make them whole on that, or so the rumor goes.
>>65237902The timeline slip was announced in 2021 for 2027, which is roughly on track today 5 years later.
>>65237905If I order something to arrive this year, but circumstances occur and we agree it can be delivered three years from now, but it ends up being done next year, is it one year late or two years early?
>>65237902Well, the first B-21s are meant to roll out in 2027 and apparently there's talks of a second production line being in the works or at least being discussed as a likely possibility. Both Northrop and the Air Force are pushing the B-21s to be put into service now rather than later. And if NG proves that they're capable of expanding their production capabilities that might convince the Navy to pick them over Boeing (Though I think NG is going to be chosen because I don't think anyone in the Pentagon wants a single aerospace manufacturer to have an effective monopoly on fighter jets)
>>65237919Am I really supposed to take an internal timeline from the early 2010s seriously a decade later after COVID?Like I get it, TECHNICALLY it missed the "mid 2020s" service entry, but again, that was an internal timeline from the inception of the program, not a realistic timeline after the actual engineering had been done and they were ready to build it, once we reached that stage in 2020/21, they updated the timline accounting for the COVID delay.First flight slipped from 2021/22 to 2023, and service entry from 2024/25 to 2027.
>>65237948Boeing has the massive advantage of having new production floor space under construction right now, on their own dime. Northrop’s would not be done until years later and if it’s done the same way as B-21 would cost the government quite a lot of money. Boeing also has the advantage of having their focus on 6th generation fighters since ~2016, while Northrop was busy with B-21. We know from comments by the former SecAF that their offering was not impressive, and left NGAD while on the verge of being eliminated. As near as I can tell the argument is that the Navy should accept a worse plane at a later date, to mollify industrial concerns that are in large part addressed by the government retaining IP ownership, where not doing so was the major issue with F-35.
>>65237997Anything is ahead of schedule when you change the schedule when that stops being true. A cost overrun is still a cost overrun even when the company eats it, which Northrop has. Two years late and ~1 billion over budget isn’t terrible performance, but it is not ahead of schedule and it is not under budget.
>>65238023Nigger, the original 2015 contract award officially had "mid-2020's" for IOC, which officially means 2024-28. Anywhere in that window is officially "on time".They give firmer IOC's as the date approaches.What the fuck would be the point in saying April 3rd, 2029, on a contract in mid 2018? It would be a pure fucking guess. Instead they give a range, and anywhere in that range is on time. Right now, B-21 is still well within time to hit IOC within the original contract date range.
>>65238038Where are you getting that official split, because 4-4-2 is a fucking retarded way to split 10
>>65238053There is no official split, but it GENERALLY just means "sometime in the middle of the decade", you could even stretch it to 22-28No matter what though, 2027 is still within the window of "mid 2020s", and to claim it isn't is just absurd.According to what the airforce has said, first flight was late by a year or two, but IOC is still on-time for the original schedule.
Fuckit just bring back the TA-4
>>65238055It was late to fly, it is over budget, and I do question if it will hit IOC in 2027. They just flew the first operational test pilot in it, and have only delivered two flying airframes in the almost four years since it was unveiled. They have a special office dedicated to pushing it through bureaucracy, and a great number of people talking about how fast it is moving, but having followed the program I don’t think it is moving nearly as fast as they’d like to pretend. There are a bit under 18 months left until 2028, and we are yet to see pilots and maintainers trained on it, or completed infrastructure for them on bases. We have seen contracts for the latter at least but I do not think it will actually be deployable in 2027 at the rate it is moving.
>>65238005> having new production floor space under construction right now, on their own dimeBecause they've won multiple contracts involving both the Navy and Airforce. >we know from comments by the former SecAF that their offering was not impressive, and left NGAD while on the verge of being eliminatedThat's the air force and not navy. We know very little to nothing about the F/A-XX outside of its funding issues because of how tight lipped the program has been. However, at the end of the day we'll find out in August since that's supposed to be when the winner gets picked. Though I think with the recent winnings of the T-7A, F-47, and MQ-25 contracts I don't think Boeing is going to be picked simply because the Pentagon has historically been squimish about putting all of its eggs into one basket with regards to aircraft.
>>65238093At this rate, even if it IS 1-2 years late, that's basically being delivered early if any modern USAF procurement timeline is to be the comparison.
>>65238104>Because they've won multiple contracts involving both the Navy and Airforce.They paid like $1.5B out of pocket BEFORE winning the USAF contract for NGAD.It was a massive gamble of corporate capital.
>>65233994>too noisy
>>65238104The demonstrator program was funded in common by the Air Force, Navy, and DARPA, so there are a fair number of conclusions that can be drawn in regards to program performance. Boeing did very well, flying in 2019 on a contract signed in 2016 and winning NGAD off their performance there. Lockheed flew in 2022, and ultimately lost. DARPA’s press release post F-47 mentions only two demonstrators, so it would appear Northrop did not fly anything for the program, presumably due to the or B-21 obligations. What I have heard rumored, but have some trouble substantiating, is that Boeing focused more on the Navy’s interests while Lockheed went after the Air Force, and that Boeing’s F-47 is something of an outgrowth of work they had done largely targeting F/A-XX. Remember Boeing has a very strong working relationship with the Navy, being the major contractor for their backbone fighter, having the drone refueler contract, and the P-8 having been overall a very smooth program. In regards to eggs in a single basket, Northrop is not hurting for work currently and has overall much more valuable and important eggs in their basket. B-21 and Sentinel are two of the highest dollar and most strategically important programs being run today. If the worry is contractor oversubscription the Pentagon is likely to err towards delaying F-47 before it delays modernizing 2/3rds of the nuclear triad, especially when the company responsible for those is not publicly known to have designed and flown a new supersonic aircraft for about 40 years now.
>>65238107I’m not saying it’s been terribly run, just that it has not been the perfectly smooth sailing best ever acquisition program that it is portrayed as. They’ve done a pretty good job, but with the amount of bureaucratic special treatment the program has gotten a lot of high ranking officers have effectively staked their careers on it being the literal best thing ever, so that is how it is portrayed in press releases despite there being a few blemishes if you look closely.
>>65238112>They paid like $1.5B out of pocket BEFORE winning the USAF contract for NGAD.Are you talking about the one from 2023/24 that involves the St. Louis facility? Because the St. Louis facility expansion specifically calls out it being dual use for commercial, space, and for the air force as far back as 2024 when the expansion first broke ground. >It was a massive gamble of corporate capitalThey knew for years now that the St. Louis facility would be closing down after fulfilling the last of the F-18 orders so they needed to do something with that facility. Not saying that this facility couldn't be used for the F/A-XX but I just don't think Boeing is going to be picked because of how many recent contracts they've been winning. >>65238150>What I have heard rumored, but have some trouble substantiating, is that Boeing focused more on the Navy’s interests while Lockheed went after the Air ForceJust out of curiosity why didn't LM win the F-47 if they were gunning for the Air Force contract while Boeing wanted the Navys? Is it because of the rumors involving the Pentagon's distaste for Lockheed after all of the F35 headaches that have occurred over the years and are still going on?>Northrop is not hurting for workNeither is Boeing or Lockheed, but that wasn't my point. My point is that I think the Pentagon wants to spread out the fighter jet knowledge instead of only ever allowing 2 contractors to build fighters in perpetuity. Which I think is going to play a much larger role in the decision (if it hasn't already been privately decided) than most people will ever realize.
>>65233282Boeing will then go on a 6 trip to Europe to "find itself"
>>65238183Regarding Lockheed this is all third party hearsay and rumor. Don’t take it as fact this is just what I have heard and there is no way for me to substantiate it. But what I have heard is on top of the F-35 woes their demonstrator program was beset with issues. They were not able to move as fast as Boeing, which was compounded by Covid slowing them further. Some of the tech they wanted to demonstrate took longer than they would’ve liked to get working and integrated, and apparently was not everything they’d hoped. Finally, some people I’ve talked to hinted their airframe had a few unforeseen stability issues computer modeling apparently didn’t catch. Boeing on the other hand moved very quickly, had a generally smoother go of things, and some of the tech they demonstrated exceeded prior expectations while being cheaper than any outside observers had expected. Apparently that was particularly notable in regards to power generation, they managed to do a lot more with a lot less than anyone thought they could. They heavily benefited from work McDonnell did in the 90s, as well as chasing down DARPA work like a dog after they lost JSF. They’ve accumulated a very strong tech and knowledge base while Lockheed was tied up by the magnitude of F-35 work. NGAD was won on merit, and they are probably our strongest stealth fighter house currently. They were the favorite to win NGAD basically as soon as Lockheed’s demonstrator was tested, which I can substantiate somewhat as even AvWeek repeated that rumor on a podcast back in I want to say ‘23. While I understand the concern industrially from everything I have heard Boeing is the strongest horse right now and the Navy of the future will probably be worse off if they lose. Again, all of this should be taken as hearsay. I have no credibility and can’t give you anything to prove most of this. But it is what it is have heard.
>>65238210>But what I have heard is on top of the F-35 woes their demonstrator program was beset with issues.Man, what the fuck is going on with Lockheed Martin these last few decades. I knew people in the Pentagon were pissed at them but I didn't think it'd be THAT bad of a shitshow over at LM>have heard Boeing is the strongest horse right now and the Navy of the future will probably be worse offFair enough, if Boeing is just that good than I don't mind them winning. Me wanting NG to win is partly due to wanting another Northrop navy cat to be part of the fleet again while also still being hesitant about having a clearly dominant Boeing winning all of the contracts and at the same time letting the design and manufacturing capabilities of other companies degrade and suffer for it
>>65238258F-35 was structured to be a too big to fail program to survive to doldrums of the post Cold War budget environment. That worked, but had the unfortunate consequence of creating a program too big for anything else to succeed. It has sucked all the air out of the room, and with how behind they are on the work they have Lockheed Aero just don’t have spare capacity to really do anything else. Rumor is that was reflected in their demonstrator, which I have heard was definitely more advanced than what they make now, but comparatively conservative. Boeing had nothing to lose and nothing else going on in St. Louis, shot for the moon and apparently hit it. As regards Northrop, from what I have heard they’ve spent long enough doing bombers that they’ve already become something of a bomber and drone house. They’re unquestionably the best in the world at high stealth subsonic, but because they’ve been doing it so long that is really their institutional knowledge. They lost ATF, weren’t down selected for JSF, and seem to have missed AII from B-21 obligations. All the leads on ATF are retired, as are really anyone but the most junior staff, and they haven’t had anything since to train fighter guys on. Boeing meanwhile inherited McDonnell’s knowledge and despite their JSF bid failing it kept them working on fighters. After that, Phantom Works got a lot of money poured into them, because corporate recognized they were going to lose their fighter market soon if something didn’t change. They also benefited massively from ATF, as while Boeing and McDonnell weren’t the leads on either team, they’re the only existing shop that got to look behind the curtain on both sides of the program, which was huge for their knowledge base. We will have to see what F-47 ends up being, and who ultimately wins F/A-XX, but there’s a fair argument shaping up that that Phantom Works could be looked back on as this generation’s Skunk Works
>>65233282Why are trainers necessary with all these new aircraft being fly by wireWould it not be cheaper and more effective to develop adaptive software that increases in difficulty and capability by flight hour
>>65238300Whats funny about all of this is that the F/A-xx program all started because the Navy viewed the F-18 as being at its capacity with regards to future upgrades among other concerns involving China and whatnot. Makes me wonder why the F-15 and F-16 aren't considered as being at max capacity with regards to their respective airframes upgrade capacities and near-peer adversary capabilities. You would think a 6th gen multi-role/air-to-ground replacement platform for either of those two aircraft would be something that people would be openly discussing
>>65238315Absolutely not. I couldn't imagine the insane cost of sending pilots from their primary trainer to an F-35. It would take away airframes and parts from the operational fleet, not to mention the fact that F-35s are only single seat aircraft. Generally trainer aircraft are much cheaper and more forgiving than fleet aircraft.
>>65238326F-16 I think we are done buying, that got replaced by F-35and in the future CCAs. F-15 is mostly ground strike now, and to match an E’s theoretical max warlord on a stealth platform you need B-21. They’re also useful as CAP for drones, and hauling outsize munitions we didn’t size bays around. F/A-18s issue is that it does everything, its specialty is that it has no specialty, and it’s outclassed now in too many of them. The Navy has no Raptor to go rape enemy planes for them. They have a small number of F-35s that can’t operate off half or more of the carriers currently. If they want to penetrate enemy airspace the same aircraft is doing air superiority, SEAD, strike, and tanking. Tanking is getting farmed off to a drone, and everything else is going to be done by F/A-XX, F-35, and potential future drones. Meanwhile USAF will replace the Raptor with F-47, which will also probably have some SEAD/strike capabilities since SiAW is under the NGAD portfolio.
>>65238064Unironically though. T-45 should have never replaced it, line was still hot when the competition was going on
>>65237768>NGAD level of wants at drone level of costsJesus fucking Christ...
>>65237781>Sierra nevada could probably make a flying prototype in a year and be in LRIP in 2For a company that exists only on paper and has admitted at their first ever conference of not even having started projecting the jet? No way in hell.
>>65233282T-7 is a Saab aircraft sold under the Boeing brand. Perhaps thats why it doesnt sell.
>>65238886Nope, retard. It's a collaboration with the 2 with SAAB almost doing nothing. Boein utter incompetence and constant delays is the reason it doesn't sell.
