Both the USAF and the US Navy are looking to maybe buy new "Tactical Surrogate Aircraft" or "Advanced Tactical Trainers".

My question .. why not buy T-7As equipped as needed? In what way is the T-7A less capable or cost more than than the other obvious competitors like the M-346 or the KA-50? And I wonder if the USN and USAF will buy the same aircraft??

How many?
USAF - 100 or maybe more
USN - 80 which might be the same aircraft (or not)

What will it do?
"The idea behind the tactical surrogate is to have a lower-cost training platform equipped with a cockpit that’s representative of an advanced frontline fighter jet, such as the F-35. It’s driven by the fact that the current T-7A program of record, covering 351 aircraft, is judged insufficient to meet all future jet training needs as envisaged under Reforge."

How does it differ from the T-7A?
"The Advanced Tactical Trainer would likely emerge with a very different set of capabilities compared to the T-7A's. The Air Force is eyeing external hardpoints for the carriage of training weapons, electronic warfare pods, air combat maneuvering instrumentation pods, and fuel tanks. A compact radar might be another option for the jet, and the RFI also specifically mentions that consideration is being given to installing an infrared search and track (IRST) sensor."

Will it be the T-7A?
"The additional aircraft might also be Red Hawks, but the service has said it will look at any potential contenders that fit its requirement."

What about the Navy?
"is not required to perform catapult launches or arrested landings aboard aircraft carriers"

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... port-roles
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... -red-hawks

They do not have any budget problem, if they want they can do it.

I think they will ask Boeing to prepare some specific advanced training aircraft for them.

This is going to be a huge contract

This is an RFP for the 2nd stage trainer, the T-7A is the selected 1st stage trainer. It is enough different - hard points, possibly a gun, and different mission sets that a RFP is required.

I am 100% positive that Boeing will be proposing a T-7A variant for this and they are in the post position on this race - probably theirs to loose. For 100 or so planes, there is too few to do a clean sheet, so the contenders are most likely the 3 that competed for the T-X. I recall Boeing indicated that the total market for the T-7 was on the order of 2,000+ frames. It will need to win this, the Navy trainer contracts, aggressor squadrons, and a future light fighter.

If the operating flight hour cost can stay low, there will be a lot of F/T-7's out there. At each active duty and national guard base if there was a half dozen F/T-7 with low hour cost possibly half of the hours to stay current could be on these instead of the F-15, F-16, and F-35, saving millions of dollars per frame.

JayinKitsap wrote:

This is an RFP for the 2nd stage trainer, the T-7A is the selected 1st stage trainer. It is enough different - hard points, possibly a gun, and different mission sets that a RFP is required.

I am 100% positive that Boeing will be proposing a T-7A variant for this and they are in the post position on this race - probably theirs to loose. For 100 or so planes, there is too few to do a clean sheet, so the contenders are most likely the 3 that competed for the T-X. I recall Boeing indicated that the total market for the T-7 was on the order of 2,000+ frames. It will need to win this, the Navy trainer contracts, aggressor squadrons, and a future light fighter.

If the operating flight hour cost can stay low, there will be a lot of F/T-7's out there. At each active duty and national guard base if there was a half dozen F/T-7 with low hour cost possibly half of the hours to stay current could be on these instead of the F-15, F-16, and F-35, saving millions of dollars per frame.

You have to know that Boeing was planning to replace the T-45 (its own product - with BAe) at some point. What do you want to bet that preliminary designs were done on a T-7 with arrestor hook long ago? Perhaps not to any level of detail, but enough that they would have some idea of hardware placement.

Stretch the existing trainers as long as possible given the growth of UAV's greatly decreasing need for manned aircraft.

N328KF wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

This is an RFP for the 2nd stage trainer, the T-7A is the selected 1st stage trainer. It is enough different - hard points, possibly a gun, and different mission sets that a RFP is required.

I am 100% positive that Boeing will be proposing a T-7A variant for this and they are in the post position on this race - probably theirs to loose. For 100 or so planes, there is too few to do a clean sheet, so the contenders are most likely the 3 that competed for the T-X. I recall Boeing indicated that the total market for the T-7 was on the order of 2,000+ frames. It will need to win this, the Navy trainer contracts, aggressor squadrons, and a future light fighter.

If the operating flight hour cost can stay low, there will be a lot of F/T-7's out there. At each active duty and national guard base if there was a half dozen F/T-7 with low hour cost possibly half of the hours to stay current could be on these instead of the F-15, F-16, and F-35, saving millions of dollars per frame.

You have to know that Boeing was planning to replace the T-45 (its own product - with BAe) at some point. What do you want to bet that preliminary designs were done on a T-7 with arrestor hook long ago? Perhaps not to any level of detail, but enough that they would have some idea of hardware placement.

The T-45 replacement trainer will not require either the catapult nor arrestor hook. Only carrier ops will be touch and go's, this T-7B will probably fit both the Navy T-45 and this RFP. They also discussed a fair bit right after the award (post protest period) that future variants will include light fighters and also interceptors that can cover the wayward business jet or Cessna, with the F-15's coming after if needed.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... et-trainer

JayinKitsap wrote:

N328KF wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

This is an RFP for the 2nd stage trainer, the T-7A is the selected 1st stage trainer. It is enough different - hard points, possibly a gun, and different mission sets that a RFP is required.

I am 100% positive that Boeing will be proposing a T-7A variant for this and they are in the post position on this race - probably theirs to loose. For 100 or so planes, there is too few to do a clean sheet, so the contenders are most likely the 3 that competed for the T-X. I recall Boeing indicated that the total market for the T-7 was on the order of 2,000+ frames. It will need to win this, the Navy trainer contracts, aggressor squadrons, and a future light fighter.

If the operating flight hour cost can stay low, there will be a lot of F/T-7's out there. At each active duty and national guard base if there was a half dozen F/T-7 with low hour cost possibly half of the hours to stay current could be on these instead of the F-15, F-16, and F-35, saving millions of dollars per frame.

You have to know that Boeing was planning to replace the T-45 (its own product - with BAe) at some point. What do you want to bet that preliminary designs were done on a T-7 with arrestor hook long ago? Perhaps not to any level of detail, but enough that they would have some idea of hardware placement.

The T-45 replacement trainer will not require either the catapult nor arrestor hook. Only carrier ops will be touch and go's, this T-7B will probably fit both the Navy T-45 and this RFP. They also discussed a fair bit right after the award (post protest period) that future variants will include light fighters and also interceptors that can cover the wayward business jet or Cessna, with the F-15's coming after if needed.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... et-trainer

I'm curious ... how much additional work would be needed to add a real combat capability given the extra hard points and electronics for these pods? My fear is that the flight testing for actual weapons will be expensive, and that the required onboard software will be both expensive and time consuming.

kitplane01 wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

N328KF wrote:

You have to know that Boeing was planning to replace the T-45 (its own product - with BAe) at some point. What do you want to bet that preliminary designs were done on a T-7 with arrestor hook long ago? Perhaps not to any level of detail, but enough that they would have some idea of hardware placement.

The T-45 replacement trainer will not require either the catapult nor arrestor hook. Only carrier ops will be touch and go's, this T-7B will probably fit both the Navy T-45 and this RFP. They also discussed a fair bit right after the award (post protest period) that future variants will include light fighters and also interceptors that can cover the wayward business jet or Cessna, with the F-15's coming after if needed.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... et-trainer

I'm curious ... how much additional work would be needed to add a real combat capability given the extra hard points and electronics for these pods? My fear is that the flight testing for actual weapons will be expensive, and that the required onboard software will be both expensive and time consuming.

Yes, it would need extensive design and certification work to do this - sometime AFTER the T-7A gets certified. I am sure there is a lot of certification work to even do touch and go's on a carrier.

The USAF needs hundreds more aircraft, so it's interesting that there is nothing saying the USAF won't buy more than one type for ATT. They actually say they'll consider "any and all offerors." KAL/LMT is practically ready to make them now. Boeing starts full-rate production in the next year, and it's not like Leonardo would hate to produce a lot of 100 M346s, which seem a closer fit for F-15 & F-22s. They'd need to iron out their cockpit mods which seems an easy lift after all the study they did for T-X.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42760/air-force-wants-hundreds-more-jet-trainers-despite-already-buying-t-7-red-hawks

Could the old F-20 Tigershark aircraft be revived and upgraded for this role?

I have always felt the F-20 was one aircraft design that never got its due.

The aircraft would be perfect for advanced Jet Combat training and as aggressor aircraft for Training. It could also find export markets. As a light weight and cheap multi-role aircraft, the US could readily export the aircraft for local production overseas in countries like Turkey and India, without risking leak of advanced technology to Dictators.

Would love to see the F-20NG take to the skies!

BawliBooch wrote:

Could the old F-20 Tigershark aircraft be revived and upgraded for this role?

I have always felt the F-20 was one aircraft design that never got its due.

The aircraft would be perfect for advanced Jet Combat training and as aggressor aircraft for Training. It could also find export markets. As a light weight and cheap multi-role aircraft, the US could readily export the aircraft for local production overseas in countries like Turkey and India, without risking leak of advanced technology to Dictators.

Would love to see the F-20NG take to the skies!

I think a large part (more than half) of the cost of this new airplane will be software and electronics. And all of that would have to be done from scratch for the F20neo.

kitplane01 wrote:

And all of that would have to be done from scratch for the F20neo.

Manufacturing tech has advanced since that time as well. They would have to re-engineer a large part of the structures (to high speed machining and non-metalics) to be competitive, cost and performance wise.

bt

kitplane01 wrote:

And all of that would have to be done from scratch for the F20neo.

Manufacturing tech has advanced since that time as well. They would have to re-engineer a large part of the structures (to high speed machining and non-metalics) to be competitive, cost and performance wise.

bt

Northrop Grummans's T-X bid was more or less an F-20

744SPX wrote:

Northrop Grummans's T-X bid was more or less an F-20

F-20, are people nuts. Just

https://imgflip.com/m/NewTemplates/tag/let+it+die

F-20 already lost to F-16, no need to lose again.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

F-20 already lost to F-16, no need to lose again.

Bingo! Might as well get more two-seat F16’s if you want an advanced trainer. It’s reliable, flexible and highly capable. And since there won’t be a need for development you’d save big money.

JayinKitsap wrote:

The T-45 replacement trainer will not require either the catapult nor arrestor hook. Only carrier ops will be touch and go's, this T-7B will probably fit both the Navy T-45 and this RFP

I think this is a big mistake the Navy is making.

INFINITI329 wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

The T-45 replacement trainer will not require either the catapult nor arrestor hook. Only carrier ops will be touch and go's, this T-7B will probably fit both the Navy T-45 and this RFP

I think this is a big mistake the Navy is making.

It’s classic “skip on the front end (training), pay on the back end (accidents with combat aircraft).”

texl1649 wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

The T-45 replacement trainer will not require either the catapult nor arrestor hook. Only carrier ops will be touch and go's, this T-7B will probably fit both the Navy T-45 and this RFP

I think this is a big mistake the Navy is making.

It’s classic “skip on the front end (training), pay on the back end (accidents with combat aircraft).”

Not sure training pilots the way we always have is the right way to train them going forward. Probably a better way to do this that doesn’t require carrier qual as part of Advanced Flight but smarter heads than me can figure that out, and may have…

744SPX wrote:

Northrop Grummans's T-X bid was more or less an F-20

I thought the Northrop Grumman T-X bid was based on the British Hawk?

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

F-20 already lost to F-16, no need to lose again.

I dont think the F-20 was in the same league as the F-16 - different aircraft for a totally different role.

The F-20 came out of a perceived need for a capable frontline aircraft that could hold its own against the latest Soviet fighters but without the advanced systems of the frontline US fighters like the F-16. This would ensure that advanced Western technology did not leak to the Soviets/Chinese through unreliable/weak allies.

Many of the allied countries that ended up getting F-16s would have got the F-20 instead if it had been developed. Unfortunately with the US forces resoundingly voting it down for their own use. And President Carter effectively ended the original FX frontline light fighter policy, when he signed a deal to supply Pakistan with advanced F-16s. Or was that Reagan/Bush?

A very capable bird that never got its due!

BawliBooch wrote:

744SPX wrote:

Northrop Grummans's T-X bid was more or less an F-20

I thought the Northrop Grumman T-X bid was based on the British Hawk?

Initially it was, but then they decided they needed something more competitive, the Model 400 Swift

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... -contender

I believe the specs in this article are significantly off.

BawliBooch wrote:

744SPX wrote:

Northrop Grummans's T-X bid was more or less an F-20

I thought the Northrop Grumman T-X bid was based on the British Hawk?

First NG attempt, second was their own aircraft built by Scaled Composites. It looked a little like the T-38/F-20 but was different and NG withdrew as they knew it wasn’t competitive.

BawliBooch wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

F-20 already lost to F-16, no need to lose again.

I dont think the F-20 was in the same league as the F-16 - different aircraft for a totally different role.

The F-20 came out of a perceived need for a capable frontline aircraft that could hold its own against the latest Soviet fighters but without the advanced systems of the frontline US fighters like the F-16. This would ensure that advanced Western technology did not leak to the Soviets/Chinese through unreliable/weak allies.

Mano a mano the F-16A was less advanced than F-20, APG-67 was more advanced than APG-66 blah blah blah. F-20 could never have become what F-16 became and had limitations on size and growth. There just isn’t a market for light fighters like there was with the F-5. Gripen is an export bust, JF-17 has gone nowhere, Tejas is india only and no one else is interested.

BawliBooch wrote:

Many of the allied countries that ended up getting F-16s would have got the F-20 instead if it had been developed. Unfortunately with the US forces resoundingly voting it down for their own use. And President Carter effectively ended the original FX frontline light fighter policy, when he signed a deal to supply Pakistan with advanced F-16s. Or was that Reagan/Bush?

A very capable bird that never got its due!

F-16 was being manufactured in huge numbers so always had the fleet size advantage. History is littered with great aircraft, ships tanks, rifles that never made it. Just let it die…

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

I think this is a big mistake the Navy is making.

It’s classic “skip on the front end (training), pay on the back end (accidents with combat aircraft).”

Not sure training pilots the way we always have is the right way to train them going forward. Probably a better way to do this that doesn’t require carrier qual as part of Advanced Flight but smarter heads than me can figure that out, and may have…

The touch and go is an important step, probably the hardest thing for a pilot to do outside of war. The video of the landing will tell everyone if there had been a successful hook if real, and it practices the essential "to go" maneuver, yes anticipated but a great experience. I am hoping that the Navy has a catapult simulator that every one feels the high G force of a launch, similarly an arrestor trainer. It would be an experience to feel 60 to 0 in the length of a basketball court.

NAVSEA trainers are quite good, not sure how good NAVAIR trainers are though. I just hope that the developers can execute what the salesman sold.

The timing of this is good, the actual RFP's will be a year + out is my guess, by then we should know if the program is a great one, so-so, or another disaster. I'm hoping it is a great one with respect to pilot training and also the budget.

744SPX wrote:

BawliBooch wrote:

744SPX wrote:

Northrop Grummans's T-X bid was more or less an F-20

I thought the Northrop Grumman T-X bid was based on the British Hawk?

Initially it was, but then they decided they needed something more competitive, the Model 400 Swift

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... -contender

I believe the specs in this article are significantly off.

Maybe off-topic, but in the longer term thought of maintenance and reliability, would a one-piece composite wing, such as the one noted for the 400 Swift, be easier to replace? With only 3 spars, my immediate thought goes to the ease of re-winging an aircraft with this design vs most current fighters.

aumaverick wrote:

would a one-piece composite wing, such as the one noted for the 400 Swift, be easier to replace?

Why would you need to replace a composite wing? Should not be a fatigue issue.

Really depends on how it is attached to the center wing box. And whether that center portion is metallic or composite.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

aumaverick wrote:

would a one-piece composite wing, such as the one noted for the 400 Swift, be easier to replace?

Why would you need to replace a composite wing? Should not be a fatigue issue.

Really depends on how it is attached to the center wing box. And whether that center portion is metallic or composite.

bt

In any case, it's not like that's remotely new technology. Didn't McD-D do that with the AV-8B like 40 years ago?

BawliBooch wrote:

Many of the allied countries that ended up getting F-16s would have got the F-20 instead if it had been developed. Unfortunately with the US forces resoundingly voting it down for their own use. And President Carter effectively ended the original FX frontline light fighter policy, when he signed a deal to supply Pakistan with advanced F-16s. Or was that Reagan/Bush?

Losing 2/3 of the testing fleet to crashes in the hands of very capable test pilots seems to point the other direction.

And the real nail in the coffin for the F-5G (erm F-20), vs the F-16, was the wise decision to stop the insanity of the F-16/79.

Spacepope wrote:

Losing 2/3 of the testing fleet to crashes in the hands of very capable test pilots seems to point the other direction.

.

Don't even go there. Both of those crashes were from G-lock. The aircraft outperformed the pilots, essentially.

744SPX wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

Losing 2/3 of the testing fleet to crashes in the hands of very capable test pilots seems to point the other direction.

.

Don't even go there. Both of those crashes were from G-lock. The aircraft outperformed the pilots, essentially.

Being too much aircraft for expert pilots is a weird flex for selling it as a trainer but OK. Rewarming the corpse of the F-20 is not a proposal made by Serious People.

JayinKitsap wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

It’s classic “skip on the front end (training), pay on the back end (accidents with combat aircraft).”

Not sure training pilots the way we always have is the right way to train them going forward. Probably a better way to do this that doesn’t require carrier qual as part of Advanced Flight but smarter heads than me can figure that out, and may have…

The touch and go is an important step, probably the hardest thing for a pilot to do outside of war. The video of the landing will tell everyone if there had been a successful hook if real, and it practices the essential "to go" maneuver, yes anticipated but a great experience. I am hoping that the Navy has a catapult simulator that every one feels the high G force of a launch, similarly an arrestor trainer. It would be an experience to feel 60 to 0 in the length of a basketball court.

NAVSEA trainers are quite good, not sure how good NAVAIR trainers are though. I just hope that the developers can execute what the salesman sold.

The timing of this is good, the actual RFP's will be a year + out is my guess, by then we should know if the program is a great one, so-so, or another disaster. I'm hoping it is a great one with respect to pilot training and also the budget.

I hope you’re arguing shipboard T&Gs are the hardest thing outside of combat because on land, T&Gs are duck soup easy. Heck, ATC pilots at the PIT do them in formation.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Not sure training pilots the way we always have is the right way to train them going forward. Probably a better way to do this that doesn’t require carrier qual as part of Advanced Flight but smarter heads than me can figure that out, and may have…

The touch and go is an important step, probably the hardest thing for a pilot to do outside of war. The video of the landing will tell everyone if there had been a successful hook if real, and it practices the essential "to go" maneuver, yes anticipated but a great experience. I am hoping that the Navy has a catapult simulator that every one feels the high G force of a launch, similarly an arrestor trainer. It would be an experience to feel 60 to 0 in the length of a basketball court.

NAVSEA trainers are quite good, not sure how good NAVAIR trainers are though. I just hope that the developers can execute what the salesman sold.

The timing of this is good, the actual RFP's will be a year + out is my guess, by then we should know if the program is a great one, so-so, or another disaster. I'm hoping it is a great one with respect to pilot training and also the budget.

I hope you’re arguing shipboard T&Gs are the hardest thing outside of combat because on land, T&Gs are duck soup easy. Heck, ATC pilots at the PIT do them in formation.

Yes, shipboard. On land if they can't, they shouldn't be flying. At sea, the movement of the deck, the up and down drafts etc is what makes it tricky

JayinKitsap wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

It’s classic “skip on the front end (training), pay on the back end (accidents with combat aircraft).”

Not sure training pilots the way we always have is the right way to train them going forward. Probably a better way to do this that doesn’t require carrier qual as part of Advanced Flight but smarter heads than me can figure that out, and may have…

The touch and go is an important step, probably the hardest thing for a pilot to do outside of war. The video of the landing will tell everyone if there had been a successful hook if real, and it practices the essential "to go" maneuver, yes anticipated but a great experience. I am hoping that the Navy has a catapult simulator that every one feels the high G force of a launch, similarly an arrestor trainer. It would be an experience to feel 60 to 0 in the length of a basketball court.

NAVSEA trainers are quite good, not sure how good NAVAIR trainers are though. I just hope that the developers can execute what the salesman sold.

The timing of this is good, the actual RFP's will be a year + out is my guess, by then we should know if the program is a great one, so-so, or another disaster. I'm hoping it is a great one with respect to pilot training and also the budget.

Probably downplaying carrier traps because "Magic Carpet" makes landing easy. https://jalopnik.com/magic-carpet-will-make-landing-on-a-carrier-so-much-eas-1793618342

NG or LMT should team with Taiwans AIDC and offer a version of the T5 Brave Eagle trainer , which is itself a modernized trainer version of the F1 Ching Kuo IDF. The first production version of the T5 just flew. Only issue might be if the T5 is still constrained by the Reagan administration imposed rules against US OEMs involved in the IDF program that the IDF could not be turned into a US made product for export. But perhaps this will not apply to the T5 whose structure is a modernized composite version of the IDF with non afterburning engines with the IDF-2 Goshawks avionics. Its FBW is supposed to be able to be switched to emulate flying characteristics of the ROCAFs IDF, Mirage 2000 and F16.
While GD was involved in the IDF program (they oversaw program management) given LMTs and KAIs association more recently on the T50, maybe NG is more likely of any US company to team up. They certainly have a long association with AIDC who license manufactured some 300 F5E/Fs. Or even potentially Raytheon (who licensed the original Patriot and their original amraam program entry design to the Taiwanese for their Tien King sams and TienChien 2 aams).

OT As some were talking about the F20, all the F20s avionics ended up in the IDF!

trex8 wrote:

NG or LMT should team with Taiwans AIDC and offer a version of the T5 Brave Eagle trainer , which is itself a modernized trainer version of the F1 Ching Kuo IDF. The first production version of the T5 just flew. Only issue might be if the T5 is still constrained by the Reagan administration imposed rules against US OEMs involved in the IDF program that the IDF could not be turned into a US made product for export. But perhaps this will not apply to the T5 whose structure is a modernized composite version of the IDF with non afterburning engines with the IDF-2 Goshawks avionics. Its FBW is supposed to be able to be switched to emulate flying characteristics of the ROCAFs IDF, Mirage 2000 and F16.
While GD was involved in the IDF program (they oversaw program management) given LMTs and KAIs association more recently on the T50, maybe NG is more likely of any US company to team up. They certainly have a long association with AIDC who license manufactured some 300 F5E/Fs. Or even potentially Raytheon (who licensed the original Patriot and their original amraam program entry design to the Taiwanese for their Tien King sams and TienChien 2 aams).

OT As some were talking about the F20, all the F20s avionics ended up in the IDF!

What's the advantage over the existing T-7A? It would need a new assembly line, and uses engines not already in the US inventory, and would be a new airframe not in the inventory.

kitplane01 wrote:

What's the advantage over the existing T-7A?

Putting a factory that makes planes for the USAF in Taiwan would provide more detergent for an invasion or make it more likely for the UD to enter the war if an invasion occurred.

Not sure if that is an advantage or disadvantage.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

What's the advantage over the existing T-7A?

Putting a factory that makes planes for the USAF in Taiwan would provide more detergent for an invasion or make it more likely for the UD to enter the war if an invasion occurred.

Not sure if that is an advantage or disadvantage.

bt

Didnt mean to say a Taiwan assembly line, for that many planes they could make a US assembly line. Yes, it will be a new airframe in air force and navy inventory but if that was such a huge issue this would be a sole source award to Boeing. Any other possible contender will have the same issue of starting a new US FAL or importing also. Half the engine for the IDF/T5 is US sourced from Honeywell already and assembled in Taiwan, no reason Honeywell couldn't assemble the whole thing in US. In fact the export versions of the non afterburning ones for the M346, L159 are assembled in US. Incidentally the f124 is used in the Boeing X45 already. Honeywell even pitched it to replace the Adour on the T45 some years ago. Would have been cheaper and more reliable supposedly but no money in budget.
If DoD wants to maintain a manufacturing base of more than two OEMs, having another major OEM get the contract would help. Maybe NG can even deliver on cost/time unlike B and LMT. Using the IDF/T5 as the basis of this new plane provides proven experience (at least with the IDFs history). Anything else even the T7 is an unknown. I can't see the M346 meeting the performance requirements and the IDFs probably racked up far more hours than the M346.