“As the winners of the competition, Boeing and Swedish aerospace firm Saab are set to capture sales of at least 351 training jets to the U.S. Air Force, with possibly more in the international market. The program promises to keep Boeing’s tactical aircraft business strong after the F-15 and F/A-18 Super Hornet lines disappear in the next decade.”
Interesting. I’d expect the USAF to go all-in with a LockMart product again, not a Boeing one. I guess with this, the Navy MQ-25 contract, the USAF MH-139, and the KC-46, Boeing is rolling in the gov’t cheese.
It might be that the USAF wants to make sure that Lockheed has some competition in the future 
And risk angering the all-mighty F-35 producer? Never!
SAAB! 
Boeing rolled the dice on a clean sheet and won.
Their reuse of existing tech cobbled together with new for the KC-46 hasn’t turned out so well, either, so LM and Leo’s designs had that against them. I think the idea of a purpose-built design that didn’t cost more appealed to the USAF.
And they probably didn’t mandate a gold plated ejection seat.
Looks like a nice machine. By appearances the visibility from the back seat is very good. That’s all that really matters. Everything else is gravy.
Is it me or does it look like they stuck an FA-18D in the wash&dry on high and it shrunk?
Yeah. They also borrowed the landing gear from the F-16.
It’s hot as hell, too.
All these planes look like the same few designs now. They look like an F-16, a Hornet, an F-22/F-35, or the Euro canard way.
The losing LM entry literally was derived from the F-16. The Leonardo one was based on their M-346 IIRC, which was one in a slew of those Euro trainers.
For fans of new looks there’s nothing to see here.
Not to mention, it’s just a superior product. I may not like some of Boeing’s tactics, some of their underhanded techniques at getting the Pentagon to buy their product seem like the actions of a spoilsport.
But, credit where’s it due. They designed a damned good trainer.
Gosh…I wish I had been the recipient of some of those underhanded techniques…I’ve got a mortgage and a boat loan! Oops! Was that my outside voice again? 
LOL. It isn’t as if Boeing is all alone out there in that regard, either. I seem to recall Lockheed bribing a crap ton of people in the EU to buy the Starfighter back in the day. It’s like weather, just a part of the ecosystem.
And it looks like the Pentagon made a pretty good deal. $9B seems like a lot, but they’re getting 351 airframes with what amounts to fighter-like performance for about $25M a pop. Again, seems steep, but it has similar performance to an early F-16A. In 1998, the flyaway cost of an A-model was $14.8M; with adjusted inflation, that’s about $22.2M today. The Air Force gets a trainer with touchscreen technology and an afterburning turbofan with better fuel economy. They’ll use them for, what…30 years, maybe more?
Not to mention, Boeing also got a contract for the tanker drone for the Navy and the Huey replacement for the Air Force. It’s been a good autumn for Boeing.
Not that looks matter too much but I think the tx and the t50 golden Eagle are stunning looking machines. They make the British hawk t1 And t2 look very outdated.
The Man said “If it looks good, it flies good.” Actually a whole bunch of men said that, designers, an ace pilot, etc. It’s a truism of aviation. Elegance is not just a fashion term but also an engineering term. Aerodynamic shapes please the eye most of the times as well. Therefore a well streamlined, well proportioned and engineered machine to most observers is a beautiful machine.
Yes the TX looks good. I think the LockMart version of the T-50 with that fat spine was bravo-foxtrot ugly. So score one for the USAF 
QED
I’m showing my age but I’m frantically googling trying to find a picture of a blackjack wings swept all the way back from the front… Lol
$25M! 
Split one with you!
