While both companies seem to have worked out their differences, it's still not very clear who should be leading and what arrangements would be in case they won T-X and there were export prospects.....

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/ray ... artnership

Quote:
"Problems over who should take a senior role in the partnership arose because while Raytheon is the prime contractor, Leonardo designed and built the aircraft and has already sold the M-346, on which the T-100 is based, to Italy, Israel, Poland and Singapore.

[.....]

Although Raytheon committed that the aircraft would be assembled in the United States, there were some issues over the work share, the second source said — defining whether that would include structural assembly, for example.

[.....]

Another delicate question is potential exports of the plane by Raytheon outside the US, should it win the T-X competition, said the first source.

Having shared the technology with Raytheon, Leonardo could find its own global marketing effort to sell the M-346 challenged, as the company competes with exports of an 'American' plane by Raytheon to countries who might prefer doing business through the US Foreign Military Sales program.

'There might need to be a deal to split the export market with Raytheon,' the source said."


While necessary and important, it could be said that most of these are like "counting the chicks before the eggs are hatched" and presumptuous. Perhaps Leonardo are still smarting from the JCA saga

Devilfish wrote:

While both companies seem to have worked out their differences, it's still not very clear who should be leading and what arrangements would be in case they won T-X and there were export prospects.....

While necessary and important, it could be said that most of these are like "counting the chicks before the eggs are hatched" and presumptuous. Perhaps Leonardo are still smarting from the JCA saga

It's a legitimate concern. Hashing out the arrangements beforehand, especially related to potential export prospects, is required from any successful partnership. Many nations prefer to purchase military hardware via the US FMS process, instead of dealing directly with the vendor, even if the equipment was originally built by an non-American company that was marketed to the US military by an American company.

For example, Australia is buying the C-27J via the US FMS process, with the prime contractor being L-3 Communications. I'm sure Leonardo would have preferred to have Australia buy the aircraft from them directly.

At least, they agree enough on the final assembly site.....

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/ray ... embly-site

Quote:
"At least 70 percent of the T-100 training system — including ground-based systems —will be built in the United States, a Raytheon spokesman said. Under the terms of the agreement, Raytheon would be responsible for final assembly, checkout and delivery at the Meridian site, while structural assembly will take place in Italy.

'Our process determined that the best location for building the T-100 is Meridian, Mississippi,' Rick Yuse, president of Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems, said in a statement. 'It provides the right blend of infrastructure, proximity to our customers, government support and a talent base that's ready for the high tech jobs critical to our success'."



http://snagfilms.s3.amazonaws.com/e3/f1 ... eadjpg.jpg

rlwynn wrote:

Textron has ruled the Scorpion out. It does not meet the requirements.

Any bets for a Johnny-Come-Lately?..... .....

http://aviationweek.com/defense/sierra- ... rainer-t-x

Quote:
"Sierra Nevada Corp. (SNC) and Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) are betting that the U.S. Air Force is seeking a fuel-efficient advanced pilot trainer to succeed the outdated Northrop T-38 Talon, like the one the companies plan to offer. With the spotlight shining on the major primes until now, the two businesses have quietly set up shop in Centennial, Colorado, as Freedom Aircraft Ventures LLC, to develop a lightweight, all-composite trainer powered by two business jet-class engines..."



http://aviationweek.com/site-files/avia ... ppromo.jpg


Doesn't that bear an uncanny resemblance to the Scorpion which TextronAirLand was proposing for an attack mission Perhaps it would turn into a fighter/trainer/agressor if we stared long enough at it.

And as the year closed, contenders were ushered into the starting gates.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... fp-432824/

Quote:
"T-X contenders are off to the races today, after the US Air Force released its much anticipated final request for proposals for the T-38 trainer replacement programme.

The $16.3 billion RFP encompasses a total of 350 aircraft, including delivery of the initial five test aircraft, contract options for LRIP lots 1 and 2 and full-rate production of lots 3 through 11.

The USAF is expected to award the contract in 2017 and reach initial operational capability by the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2024, the service says in a 30 December statement."


Off they go.....

So who will win?


Boeing/SAAB T-X


Northrop Grumman/BAe Systems T-X


Lockheed T-50A (KAI T-50 Golden Eagle)


Raytheon T-100 (Leonardo M346)

The Lockheed and Raytheon entries are low risk, the T-100 two engined, perhaps more expensive? Northrop Grumman seems to be flimsy to me. The Boeing design is interesting, but a clean sheet, so more risk.
I think Lockheed will get another contract

Dutchy wrote:

So who will win?


Boeing/SAAB T-X


Northrop Grumman/BAe Systems T-X


Lockheed T-50A (KAI T-50 Golden Eagle)


Raytheon T-100 (Leonardo M346)

The Lockheed and Raytheon entries are low risk, the T-100 two engined, perhaps more expensive? Northrop Grumman seems to be flimsy to me. The Boeing design is interesting, but a clean sheet, so more risk.
I think Lockheed will get another contract

I agree - and at the end of the day, familiarity with the F-22 and F-35 is kinda the entire point of a trainer, so Lockheed will be able to leverage this concept throughout the competition - I'm guessing it would be fairly easy to incorporate small SA things into the avionics that closely represent what a pilot may experience in the two Lockheed fighters.

The Boeing concept looks great (literally) for sure - and I'd imagine (just based on the maneuverability of the hornet / super hornet) that it would be a great performer as well - perhaps more "fighter-like" than the others.

I like the Boeing design, too. The USAF tends not to buy foreign planes--possibly for political reasons so I don't see them going for the T-50 or T-100. Boeing's also very experienced with making flight simulators for their other aircraft, commercial and military, so will ace the ground-training part of the contract. Northrop's design looks dated, to me, with that huge tailfin, and lacking all the other nice proportions of the T-38. The SNC design seems to be the most risky. All they can show us is crummy render of their jet. It's almost a prank.

However, I supposed all the T-X competitors may be sandbagging so as to lull the others into thinking they've got a better chance than they do. That, and it could come down to price, where the winner will have to lower their price to get razor-thin margins for at least these first 350 units.

For industrial reasons I think Lockmart won´t win because otherwise the USAF will be all LM soon. I would also rule out Raytheon due to the T-50 being closely related to the Russian trainer. Imho Boeing looks to be leading with NG being a bit of a dark horse.

seahawk wrote:

For industrial reasons I think Lockmart won´t win because otherwise the USAF will be all LM soon. I would also rule out Raytheon due to the T-50 being closely related to the Russian trainer. Imho Boeing looks to be leading with NG being a bit of a dark horse.

Get your facts straight:

• Raytheon will be running with the T-100; T-50A is Lockheed's horse
• the T-50 competing for T-X has nothing to do with Russia (developed by a KAI-Lockheed joint-venture in the late 90'); T-50 is also an alternate designation for Sukoi's PAK-FA, but that's a totally different kettle of fish, no confusion should be possible...
• the T-100 is in fact a Leonardo (formerly Alenia-Aermacchi) M-346 Master with final assembly planned in Missisippi to bring the "made in USA" ratio over 70% (in value); the M-346 started life in 1993 as a joint-venture with Yakolev, but the collaboration broke off after just 5 years (with Alenia retaining all rights for international sales except to Russia and CIS states, e.g. Bielorussia). Since 1999 development was 100% made in Italy (first flight in 2004), and any similarity today between a M-346 and a Y-130 is limited to exterior looks (and the same target mission, of course); everything within - materials, structure, engines, avionics, software, etc. - is as different as can be. Sspecifically, there are no Russian-sourced components at all in a M-346 (let alone a T-100). Closely related? Please.

Yes, sorry I mixed up the designations. however I still think, the USAF will not want a trainer which looks like a Russian and was designed in Italy. T-50A looks like the frontrunner, but this means giving everything fighter related to Lockmart. NG has the B-21 contract, so this leaves only Boeing without a current USAF contract.

seahawk wrote:

so this leaves only Boeing without a current USAF contract.

Other than the KC-46...

moo wrote:

seahawk wrote:

so this leaves only Boeing without a current USAF contract.

Other than the KC-46...

But that won´t save the the military side of Boeing at St. Louis once the Super Hornet production ends. If the US wants to keep at least 3 capable firms for future fighter projects, Boeing needs the TX win.

seahawk wrote:

But that won´t save the the military side of Boeing at St. Louis once the Super Hornet production ends. If the US wants to keep at least 3 capable firms for future fighter projects, Boeing needs the TX win.

Or maybe Trump did have some deeper thoughts about cancelling a large bunch of F-35 orders and transferring them to the proposed Advanced Super Hornet

seahawk wrote:

moo wrote:

seahawk wrote:

so this leaves only Boeing without a current USAF contract.

Other than the KC-46...

But that won´t save the the military side of Boeing at St. Louis once the Super Hornet production ends. If the US wants to keep at least 3 capable firms for future fighter projects, Boeing needs the TX win.

Boeing has survived before without any fighter contract - both their current offerings are bought in from the MDD merger and by all accounts that expertise has been long gone from the workforce.

Why does Boeing need to survive as a third capable firm for future fighter contracts? Why not General Dynamics?

Looks like Raytheon is out of the picture.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/tra ... n-leonardo

Someone should pay AIDC for their Taiwan IDF design, slap non after burning F124 engines on it instead of the F125, bring its structure into the 21st century with more composites and you got a platform which has probably 250K+ in service hours already and a tested and reliable FBW system. And if you need to make it into a "light fighter" it will be a piece of cake.

I'm also hearing that Northrop Grumman is starting to have cold feet over continuing with T-X. They haven't made a formal decision in regards to participating in the competition, only stating that they are reviewing the RFP before making a business decision if they want to proceed.

A quick look at the options being bandied about for the T-X indicates that of the 3 remaining vendors (Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman), Northrop has the least pressing need to win another government contract and would require a lot of resources allocated along with a higher risk level to have a chance to win the contract. They got B-21, and T-X would just be another major developmental program they would have to manage. Lockheed Martin doesn't have much in the way of incentive to participate, but they don't need a lot of resources or have a high risk level to themselves to develop their aircraft. Boeing on the other hand, has the most to gain as they need to win T-X to stay relevant in the tactical air scene, but since they have a clean sheet design, they also require a lot of resources, along with a high risk level, to try to win.

Furthermore, the advanced jet trainer market is a fairly crowded market already; to complete development of a new trainer type from scratch would involve significant resources, and you would be up against an international market that has a variety of strong competitors already in service, such as the BAE Hawk, the Alenia M-346, and the KAI T-50.

The Lockheed-Martin entry isn't high risk, as I understand it, it is almost identical to the KAI T-50, perhaps some cockpit changes in order to mimic the F-35 cockpit, but that should be it. Such a same Raytheon has left the arena, I like the Leonardo M-346, good little trainer, which seems to be cheaper then the T-50.

ThePointblank wrote:

I'm also hearing that Northrop Grumman is starting to have cold feet over continuing with T-X. They haven't made a formal decision in regards to participating in the competition, only stating that they are reviewing the RFP before making a business decision if they want to proceed.
.

I've heard the same thing. If they do drop out that will leave Boeing and Lockheed as the only two serious contenders.

I'm fascinated by the cost of each candidate jet.

• Boeing said they were going to "break the cost curve" using 3D printing and advanced adhesives

• The T-50 and T100 each cost $30+ million (says Wikipedia, so whatever) and Leonardo reportedly balked at lopping off 1/3 of their price

• Northrop seems to be hesitant about even bidding, anymore, having built a prototype

• SNC/TAI insist they'll save cost by using smaller, cheaper, more efficient engines

• The GE-F404 costs around $3 milllion, and the project ceiling appears to be about $30 million, there seems to be a lot of room.

• The winning team get to amortize their costs over 350 copies, so that allows for rock-bottom fly-away costs

I see this ultimately coming down to a price war, like what happened in the KC-X, where everybody was going on about each plane's capabilities, but those were only to be considered should the prices be about even. They weren't. The KC-46 trounced the KC-45 on price, so the USAF didn't bother looking at how much more the -45 could do. If each bid for 350 planes + sims + spares come to about $15 billion, and Boeing/Saab flop down to $7 billion, then it's game over.

VSMUT wrote:

Or maybe Trump did have some deeper thoughts about cancelling a large bunch of F-35 orders and transferring them to the proposed Advanced Super Hornet

I don't think deep thoughts are his specialty.

LMP737 wrote:

If they do drop out that will leave Boeing and Lockheed as the only two serious contenders.

I wonder if there would be a repeat of the old Lightweight Fighter competition Boeing gets the Navy carrier trainer while Lockheed wins the Air Force trainer requirement. And between them have the perfect platforms for dissimilar and aggresor aircraft missions.

Not to mention downstream export prospects of affordable armed light combat aircraft.

himself wrote:

I'm fascinated by the cost of each candidate jet.

• Boeing said they were going to "break the cost curve" using 3D printing and advanced adhesives

• The T-50 and T100 each cost $30+ million (says Wikipedia, so whatever) and Leonardo reportedly balked at lopping off 1/3 of their price

• Northrop seems to be hesitant about even bidding, anymore, having built a prototype

• SNC/TAI insist they'll save cost by using smaller, cheaper, more efficient engines

• The GE-F404 costs around $3 milllion, and the project ceiling appears to be about $30 million, there seems to be a lot of room.

• The winning team get to amortize their costs over 350 copies, so that allows for rock-bottom fly-away costs

I see this ultimately coming down to a price war, like what happened in the KC-X, where everybody was going on about each plane's capabilities, but those were only to be considered should the prices be about even. They weren't. The KC-46 trounced the KC-45 on price, so the USAF didn't bother looking at how much more the -45 could do. If each bid for 350 planes + sims + spares come to about $15 billion, and Boeing/Saab flop down to $7 billion, then it's game over.

Boeing is going to pull out all the stops on this one that's for sure. Without the TX the St Louis facilities days as a final assembler of aircraft is numbered.

I like the Boeing design the most. Fully optimized and state of the art. LM seems a solid offering too.

The NG design looked low cost from the start. With Light Combat back in focus, and bonuses for performance, that wouldn't help NG.

The T-100 looks good too, two engine reduce attrition, like on the F5, F22, F15, A10.

I doubt Leonardo alone has a chance under Trump regardless. Ref. the KC-X.

T-X and Light attack are 2 different shoes.

seahawk wrote:

T-X and Light attack are 2 different shoes.

They are however, I believe it would be in the manufacturers best interest to leave the selected aircraft with the capability for that growth.

seahawk wrote:

T-X and Light attack are 2 different shoes.

It could be a left and right shoe.

Expensive dedicated aircraft are becoming something of past. Often it were strategic pork barrel contracts.

A tanker / transport isn't seen separate. MPA, ASW, SIGINT, move closer. Dedicated interceptors anyone?

The industry / politics rather develops, builds and maintains, upgrades 3 different aircraft then one. More jobs.

Software based multirole wasn't there 50 years ago. LCA / Trainer could be 90% the same.

No because Light Attack aims at bringing back capabilities that were lost with the OV-10 and OV-1. T-X based is already too much. We are looking at something like AT-6B, A-29 maybe Textron Scorpion at the high end or Iomax Archangle at the low end.

keesje wrote:

seahawk wrote:

T-X and Light attack are 2 different shoes.

It could be a left and right shoe.

Expensive dedicated aircraft are becoming something of past. Often it were strategic pork barrel contracts.

A tanker / transport isn't seen separate. MPA, ASW, SIGINT, move closer. Dedicated interceptors anyone?

The industry / politics rather develops, builds and maintains, upgrades 3 different aircraft then one. More jobs.

Software based multirole wasn't there 50 years ago. LCA / Trainer could be 90% the same.

Why is the Kai A-50 a twin seat, couldn't they just get ride of the second seat, ala BAe Hawk 200, light fighter

Dutchy wrote:

Why is the Kai A-50 a twin seat, couldn't they just get ride of the second seat, ala BAe Hawk 200, light fighter

http://www.airforce-technology.com/proj ... /hawk3.jpg

Because the bulk of the (initial) production run was for a LIFT and it's cheaper to produce one standardised airframe instead of two. See also: MiG-29K/KUB, MiG-35, etc, which are all essentially the same aircraft, and the single seaters just put a fuel tank where the GIB would sit. Even Dassault didn't do the Naval Rafale with folding wings, because then they'd be building and maintaining two aircraft variants different enough to be a headache.

cheers
A

seahawk wrote:

No because Light Attack aims at bringing back capabilities that were lost with the OV-10 and OV-1. T-X based is already too much. We are looking at something like AT-6B, A-29 maybe Textron Scorpion at the high end or Iomax Archangle at the low end.

A derivative of T-X would share the same supply chain, training requirements, and spares, which would be significantly cheaper than introducing a new type.

Well AT-6 is not a new type.

A little bit off track... but how much life does the T-1 have left?

Bronco, Iomax Archangle, AT-6 ? Vietnam is 50 years ago !

You don't want your people to be blown out of the sky. It's not only AK-47's these days..

You want to buzz out quickly when the bad guys woke up.

https://s04.justpaste.it/files/justpaste/d320/a12230475/00-2-small.jpg

Still faster than any helicopter.

Northrop Grumman/BAE Systems are out, it's now official.

Northrop Grumman and its principal teammate BAE Systems have carefully examined the U.S. Air Force’s T-X Trainer requirements and acquisition strategy as stated in the final request for proposals issued on Dec. 30, 2016.

The companies have decided not to submit a proposal for the T-X Trainer program, as it would not be in the best interest of the companies and their shareholders.

Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems remain fully committed to performing on current and future U.S. Air Force programs, to deliver critical capabilities to America’s airmen.

http://news.northropgrumman.com/news/re ... er-program

That blows big-time. First the F-20, then the YF-23, and now this beauty of a trainer. Way better looking than Boeing's submission and the T-50 in my opinion.

seahawk wrote:

No because Light Attack aims at bringing back capabilities that were lost with the OV-10 and OV-1. [.....] We are looking at something like AT-6B, A-29 maybe Textron Scorpion at the high end or Iomax Archangle at the low end.

I too was in favor of a low-cost solution for this requirement, especially since the PAF's old OV-10s were falling from the sky outside of combat, and wondering about these as possible replacements.....


http://www.janes.com/images/assets/215/ ... rives_.jpg


http://www.iomax.net/wp-content/uploads ... banner.jpg

Which could be sufficient for the threat environment down South. However, as mentioned above.....

INFINITI329 wrote:

They are however, I believe it would be in the manufacturers best interest to leave the selected aircraft with the capability for that growth.

keesje wrote:

You don't want your people to be blown out of the sky. It's not only AK-47's these days..

You want to buzz out quickly when the bad guys woke up.

seahawk wrote:

T-X based is already too much.

Maybe, although as a recent event had shown, it's better to have that capability handy.....

http://philippineairspace.blogspot.com/ ... -fire.html

And I wouldn't argue if the crew felt the same way. Probably the first time a KAI T-50 derivative had fired in anger.

The PAF could consider other (Tucano is being looked at) COIN platforms.....


http://intercepts.defensenews.com/wp-co ... 24x683.jpg

But this would always be in the equation.....

ThePointblank wrote:

A derivative of T-X would share the same supply chain, training requirements, and spares, which would be significantly cheaper than introducing a new type.

And inasmuch as the FA-50 is already in the fleet, why not make the most use of it

seahawk wrote:

Well AT-6 is not a new type.

While it looks identical to the T-6's, it is not technically the same aircraft. The engine is a different type, there are some avionics changes to incorporate the sensors, and the structure has been significantly beefed up.

Same would be true for a light attack version of T-X.

seahawk wrote:

Same would be true for a light attack version of T-X.

Not really; the T-50A is a derivative of the F/A-50 light attack aircraft. Structurally, they are similar, and the engine is the same. The T-6 and the AT-6 are different aircraft underneath the skin due to some extensive changes.

I would say FA-50 is a derivative of the T-50.

And in the full FA-50 version there was a plan to use the F414 instead of the F404, which they will probably need to do if they try to armour the cockpit and engine to give it some level of protection. Apart from that is the AT-6B only using a different version of the PT6 engine, so I think logistisc wise it will be pretty much the same.

The Jet has the advantage of faster speed, more payload and higher cruising altitude. The prop has the advantage of much longer loiter times, way lower operating costs and the ability to easily operate from semi prepared airstrips.

seahawk wrote:

I would say FA-50 is a derivative of the T-50.

And in the full FA-50 version there was a plan to use the F414 instead of the F404, which they will probably need to do if they try to armour the cockpit and engine to give it some level of protection. Apart from that is the AT-6B only using a different version of the PT6 engine, so I think logistisc wise it will be pretty much the same.

The Jet has the advantage of faster speed, more payload and higher cruising altitude. The prop has the advantage of much longer loiter times, way lower operating costs and the ability to easily operate from semi prepared airstrips.

That's an issue you mention. Dirt runways can be important. Maybe high engines like the A10 or special inlets like the MIG29s could be considered. Complex and expensive though..

http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/19411/how-are-modern-jets-modified-to-takeoff-land-on-a-dirt-runway

In the end it is a question of what is actually wanted.

Do they want a light fighter as a low tier addition to the F-35 fleet, something T-X based makes sense.
Do they want something manned to bridge the gap between the helicopters and the fighters, a prop could make sense.

ThePointblank wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Well AT-6 is not a new type.

While it looks identical to the T-6's, it is not technically the same aircraft. The engine is a different type, there are some avionics changes to incorporate the sensors, and the structure has been significantly beefed up.

I highly doubt that there is much difference between the two engines... one just produces more SHP. Im willing to bet there is at least a 95% parts commonalty between the two engines.

INFINITI329 wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Well AT-6 is not a new type.

While it looks identical to the T-6's, it is not technically the same aircraft. The engine is a different type, there are some avionics changes to incorporate the sensors, and the structure has been significantly beefed up.

I highly doubt that there is much difference between the two engines... one just produces more SHP. Im willing to bet there is at least a 95% parts commonalty between the two engines.

I am willing to bet that it is most likely just a software upgrade, and might not even feature any different parts. From what I can gather, the only difference between the -68B that powers the PC-21 and the -68C that powers the Super Tucano is a minor difference in the oil scavenge system.

So here's an outside the box thought as it relates to cost cutting. The US Airforce presently uses engines on a number of fighters, the engine manufacturers make money from those, I don't know if there is a military version of Power by the Hour programs, but what we do know if the with greater volume, prices come down. So why not select an existing engine on a frame that will be in use for the next few years and have the RFP for everything except the engine, all participants if they have to do a prototype will work with the same engine OEM.
Does this make any sense?

AIDC need to find a US partner and bid for the TX
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/a ... 2003664491

trex8 wrote:

AIDC need to find a US partner and bid for the TX
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/a ... 2003664491

Wow. Good luck with that. AIDC is still three years away from first flight. It does not look like they'll make the T-X competition at this rate.