But LO why would they care about the end state energy if it was just about the students capacity to pull G.


You can have a much cheaper, lower performance platform to just pull G - although you end up using lots of sky to maintain it for a while.


Ken's answer makes perfect sense

I'd like to point out that the KC-46 is based on a fairly old airliner. Building KC-46s does not preserve an industrial base capable of designing and building tactical aircraft, especially agile fighter types. So if that is a consideration in the T-X competition (and it may or may not be a consideration), then Boeing's tanker does not enter into the equation.

@Kenv

I would agree that the KC-46 award doesn't seem to add to the industrial base for tactical aircraft design, but a fair amount of what's going into the KC-46 is coming via Boeing Defense and certainly supports its continued existence. I also expect that, as with the C-135, there will be many variations/ modifications of the KC-46 over the years to come to provide for additional missions unrelated to AR.

All of which, whether you agree or not, has little to do with the choice for T-X.

Too bad so many candidates just don't have that dashing beauty of the T-38.

You can read into the RFI what you will, but the clarification issued on 7/10 says that the sustained g is "for purposes of APT requirements".

I believe that the USAF wants the student to experience, in a real aircraft, rapid onset (in the RFI) followed by sustained g through 140 deg. of a 180 deg. turn. The 10 per cent limit on speed loss, I would guess, is to ensure that the aircraft is more or less in a steady state (like a fighter) rather than bleeding speed like a stuck pig. Entry and exit altitudes may be safety considerations.

So IMHO the idea is to deliver the fighter g experience without the thrust and expense required to do it in level flight at 20kft.

Agreed. But while Boeing Defense is the prime, Boeing Commercial Aircraft does the great majority of both the engineering and the assembly. It provides precious little to keep the folks in St Louise (the former McDonnell folks) on the leading edge of fighter design and development. Although with SAAB doing most of the design work on the T-X, I'm not sure how much a T-X win will keep the St Louis fighter folks on the bleeding edge either. But certainly way more than the tanker.

yeah but Congressmen go on Buggin's Turn Ken -

it's Raytheon's turn at the taxpayers trough

I had to look up Buggin's Turn. Never heard it before.