Boeing Unveils “Purpose-Built” Air Force Trainer In Must-Win T-X Competition (excerpt)
(Source: The National Interest; posted Sept 13, 2016)
By Loren B. Thompson
While the author of this article mentions only Northrop’s admittedly unstylish T-X competitor (pictured), Lockheed’s T-50 offering is larger and more capable while the Leonardo-Aermacchi T-100 submitted by Raytheon embodies the current state-of-the-art in jet trainers. (Twitter photo)
The Boeing Company today unveiled its entry in the Air Force's T-X program that will acquire at least 350 planes for training the service's future fighter and bomber pilots. Boeing's offering is not like the trainers being proposed by three other teams. For starters, it has twin tails that are angled like those of a fifth-generation fighter, rather than the single vertical tail featured on the other entries. It isn't stealthy, but when you view it head-on, it looks remarkably similar to the profile of planes that are -- most notably the Air Force's F-22 and F-35A fighters.

This is not an accident. In addition to the superior flight control and safer aerial refueling that twin tails deliver, Boeing insiders say their trainer was purpose-built with the instruction of airmen who are going to pilot fifth-gen aircraft in mind. Introducing low-observable technology into the design of a trainer where it wasn't required would not have made sense -- affordability is crucial -- but Boeing engineers clearly were intent on producing an airframe that mimics as closely as possible the feel and features of cutting-edge combat planes.

Company executives are enthused that industry was given early insight into the performance requirements for the new trainer, because they say that enabled them to invest their money in a clean-sheet design that was a perfect match for what the Air Force wants -- at an affordable price. The way they figure it, two of the competing entries can't match the fidelity of Boeing's design to Air Force needs because they are adaptations of existing planes, while the third -- incumbent Northrop Grumman's offering -- looks too much like the 50-year-old plane it will replace.

You might not think a company that delivers hundreds of commercial jetliners and scores of high-end military aircraft every year would view a program to produce 350 trainers as a top priority. It does though, for two reasons. First, Boeing lost competitions to build the tri-service F-35 fighter and B-21 bomber, and the top-of-the-line F-22 fighter on which it was a partner was prematurely terminated. So its military-aircraft engineers need the work. Second, demand for jetliners is cooling, which means the military side of the house will have to generate more revenues.

Beyond that, Boeing sees that the Air Force's stated objective to acquire six developmental trainers and 346 production trainers is just the beginning. The program will also need state-of-the-art simulation and training devices on the ground, it will need maintenance and modifications as threats evolve, and if it is successful then other countries will want to buy in. That's what happened with the legacy T-38 trainer, still used by countries like Germany and Turkey in the instruction of their young pilots. Over a thousand T-38s have been built since the late 1950s.

What Boeing also sees is that the Air Force can't put off developing a new trainer any longer, because the 500 or so T-38s still in its training fleet are really old, averaging over 40 years of age. That isn't just a safety and upkeep problem: Eisenhower-era airframes aren't well-suited to preparing pilots for the operation of stealthy, networked, digitized combat aircraft. The service needs a trainer that can get pilots ready for the rigors of modern warfare, not the Cold War world in which the T-38 was conceived. (end of excerpt)


Loren B. Thompson is Chief Operating Officer of the Lexington Institute, which receives funding from many US defense contractors including Boeing.


Click here for the full story, on The National Interest blog.

-ends-







prev next

Official reports See all