T-X Trainer - Boeing T-7A Red Hawk

NeilChapman said:
Would the 727 vs 757 be a better comparison? Either way I get your point.
Click to expand...

Not sure about better, but it works too, I guess.

NeilChapman said:
Still - the Boeing T-X needs that afterburner for some reason whereas the NG T-X was built w/o one.
Click to expand...

Or is it merely that Boeing/Saab *think* the USAF RFP does, whereas NG's own *interpretation* is that it can be done without?

Who's correct in his assessment? LM is offering an aircraft which is not unlike Boeing/Saab's contender in concept (and hedged it by conducting a study into an alternative which concluded they could not do appreciably better for an acceptable financial investment), while Raytheon/Leonardo are leaning more in NG's direction. So the case would appear to be anything but clear-cut.

Ultimately the USAF is the arbiter.
 
boeing updated its crvs simulator technology to 20/20. During i/itsec 2016 they demoed it with a T-X simulator
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/training-simulation/iitsec-2016-boeing-sees-2020/
 
Ogami musashi said:
boeing updated its crvs simulator technology to 20/20. During i/itsec 2016 they demoed it with a T-X simulator
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/training-simulation/iitsec-2016-boeing-sees-2020/
Click to expand...

Now that the final RFP permits a HUD-less (HMD only) aircraft, I'm wondering if any of the offerers
are going to take the plunge. Makes GBTS interesting as well.
 
360 degree Boeing T-X cockpit video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p01yyPA1DdI

Poor Norm.
 

Attachments

  • Norm.gif
    Norm.gif
    34.8 KB · Views: 728
Harrier said:
360 degree Boeing T-X cockpit video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p01yyPA1DdI

Poor Norm.
Click to expand...

Great marketing. The other teams better step up their game.
 
ca83f63a-b365-4679-b280-90bb0556b1b9.jpg


SNC/TAI Claims Freedom Trainer has %30 fuel efficent than T-38 Talon.
 
The site also claims first flight of Freedom Trainer has taken place already
 
^except for the engine locations, the lines of the "Freedom Trainer" sure look like the Textron Airland "Scorpion"...
 
Raytheon bites the T-X dust!

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/raytheon-leonardo-end-partnership-for-t-x-trainer-program
 
With the new administration at the helm, I would guess that without a US partner they might as well throw in the towel.
 
Trident said:
With the new administration at the helm, I would guess that without a US partner they might as well throw in the towel.
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know...there is some Russian heritage there after all... ;)
 
LOL! Yeah, that aspect might be argued to have gone from being a liability to a selling point - but I doubt it outweighs the Italian bit (now, if Berlusconi...) ;)
 
The T-100 just by virtue of twin powerplants that are not in use on any other US type was always going to be a long shot.

Raytheon is announcing 4th quarter earnings tomorrow. Hopefully, we'll get some more color at the earnings conference call.
 
NeilChapman said:
Has anyone heard anything from NG lately? Have they thrown in the towel on this?

N
Click to expand...

NG announces tomorrow as well. Hopefully, we'll hear something about T-X.
 
marauder2048 said:
NeilChapman said:
Has anyone heard anything from NG lately? Have they thrown in the towel on this?

N
Click to expand...

NG announces tomorrow as well. Hopefully, we'll hear something about T-X.
Click to expand...

Thanks M.

BTW...How did you hear about that? I like to be able to plug into information sources.

Regards
 
marauder2048 said:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/northrop-noncommittal-on-t-x-bid-433573/

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/trainer-price-wars-raytheon-wanted-millions-less-per-plane-than-leonardo

Some developments. Could be down to a two-way competition between the deeper pocket'ed OEMs.
Click to expand...

Is the risk (margins too low etc) too high for NG? Perhaps they feel it would put them in a better resource (manpower, capital, overall capacity & focus) position for PCA bid. Certainly will be be better margins on a >USD100million jet than a trainer.

Politically, I don't see an clear advantage for LM or Boeing. If anything, there might be a slight foreign policy advantage with the Korean jet. The PRC is putting a great deal of pressure on South Korea. This win would be received as a sign of the US commitment to that nation. Boeing certainly has the sexier airframe offering. Of course, the program is about much more than an airframe.

If LM or Boeing wins the Indian contract there could potentially be political fallout with the new administration in moving either F-16 or F-18 production to India. Especially if the USN decides to continue purchasing F-18's. LM states that they would move F-16 production jobs to F-35 assembly which would remain to be seen. Boeing, presumably, would run assembly lines in both St. Louis and India, although they only produce two jets a month. Would the F-18's (and any other parts production, support and engineering services) produced in India be offered to other countries, such as Kuwait and Canada?

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/lockheed-and-boeing-propose-to-make-f--s-and/article_450bc00f-9781-5342-858b-03aea5a07f7e.html
http://www.ibtimes.co.in/pentagon-clears-proposal-make-f-18-f-16-frontline-fighter-jets-india-692502
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2017/01/06/sales-outlook-brightens-for-boeings-fa-18-super-hornet-fighter/#403488871fc6

Lot's of risk for those two particular manufacturers.
 
NeilChapman said:
Is the risk (margins too low etc) too high for NG? Perhaps they feel it would put them in a better resource (manpower, capital, overall capacity & focus) position for PCA bid. Certainly will be be better margins on a >USD100million jet than a trainer.
Click to expand...

I would tend to think that the JSTARS, GBSD and LRSO RFPs are probably more prominent in NG's considerations than PCA.

*And I forgot (until I read the Earnings Call transcript): MQ-25A.
 
Then there is the POTUS "Buy American!"
 
NeilChapman said:
Is the risk (margins too low etc) too high for NG?
Click to expand...

Well, if it's the cost in money and resources of developing (or rather, completing development of) a clean-sheet airframe that they are balking at, there is now somebody with an established design looking for a partner... :eek:

Probably the closest in philosophy (non-afterburning) to their own Model 400 entrant, too.
 
Trident said:
NeilChapman said:
Is the risk (margins too low etc) too high for NG?
Click to expand...

Well, if it's the cost in money and resources of developing (or rather, completing development of) a clean-sheet airframe that they are balking at, there is now somebody with an established design looking for a partner... :eek:
Click to expand...

Maybe the third time is the charm after GD and Raytheon balked at the established design.

Or NG is just signalling to the DOD that the weightings in the RFP favor deeper pockets over deeper thoughts on
"the program’s lifecycle cost or for operations and sustainment cost" according to Gen. Deptula (USAF Ret).

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/time-to-get-serious-about-tx
 
marauder2048 said:
Trident said:
NeilChapman said:
Is the risk (margins too low etc) too high for NG?
Click to expand...

Well, if it's the cost in money and resources of developing (or rather, completing development of) a clean-sheet airframe that they are balking at, there is now somebody with an established design looking for a partner... :eek:
Click to expand...

Maybe the third time is the charm after GD and Raytheon balked at the established design.

Or NG is just signalling to the DOD that the weightings in the RFP favor deeper pockets over deeper thoughts on
"the program’s lifecycle cost or for operations and sustainment cost" according to Gen. Deptula (USAF Ret).

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/time-to-get-serious-about-tx
Click to expand...

Is this a change? Wasn't operational cost originally an integral component?
 
Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems Statement on the T-X Trainer Program

FALLS CHURCH, Va., Feb. 1, 2017 -- The following is a statement by Northrop Grumman Corporation:

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.
Click to expand...
 
bring_it_on said:
Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems Statement on the T-X Trainer Program

FALLS CHURCH, Va., Feb. 1, 2017 -- The following is a statement by Northrop Grumman Corporation:

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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Well..."That", as they say, "is that!" I'll miss that T-38 look; nimble, deft and graceful.
 
Seems strange that NG and BAE first try to pitch together the Hawk NG, then decide to go to a clean sheet design and once they start flying it, the T-X program is not in their best interest.

Was it in their interest in the last 6-8 months during which they didn't even try to market it?
Was it a half hearted attempt from the start?
Was it just intended to be a tech demonstrator rather than a trainer, maybe?

Or is it just like the fox that cannot reach the grapes and says they're sour?
 
Wow! I'm tastefully late to this party. Well, FWIW, I brought chips and this article:

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/northrop-grumman-drops-out-of-t-x-trainer-competition
 
CiTrus90 said:
Seems strange that NG and BAE first try to pitch together the Hawk NG, then decide to go to a clean sheet design and once they start flying it, the T-X program is not in their best interest.

Was it in their interest in the last 6-8 months during which they didn't even try to market it?
Was it a half hearted attempt from the start?
Was it just intended to be a tech demonstrator rather than a trainer, maybe?

Or is it just like the fox that cannot reach the grapes and says they're sour?
Click to expand...

Alternatively, maybe they looked at the way the program has been managed, the neverending changes to requirements, and the saturated market for that class and decided the payoff on 350 aircraft wasn't worth the headache and cost.
This could be their way to say, "I think you're going to change the requirements again, set a demanding time table, and then blame me for the delays and extra cost involved in redesigns to meet the changed requirements. Then when the price inevitably climbs, you'll make sure only 350 are purchased, and I doubt foreign customers lineup for an expensive limited-run trainer when the market is chock full of capable trainers. It's not worth pouring money into this, hoping I win, and that the program isn't canceled. Our stockholders are better off buying lotto tickets."
 
Was there anything substantial changed between the Draft RFI issued over the summer and the final document early January?
 
CiTrus90 said:
Seems strange that NG and BAE first try to pitch together the Hawk NG, then decide to go to a clean sheet design and once they start flying it, the T-X program is not in their best interest.
Click to expand...

bring_it_on said:
Was there anything substantial changed between the Draft RFI issued over the summer and the final document early January?
Click to expand...

So what changed between early autumn last year and now which may affect NG's perception of the cost/benefit in this competition? Something beginning with T and ending in p? Maybe they decided one high-profile air force programme (B-21) was quite enough exposure to the vagaries of the new administration.
 
CiTrus90 said:
Seems strange that NG and BAE first try to pitch together the Hawk NG, then decide to go to a clean sheet design and once they start flying it, the T-X program is not in their best interest.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily surprising. First up, new intel' on the customer requirements, desires etc would be coming in all the time and being inputted to the company decision making process here. Secondly, if they are using a gated process (which I strongly believe to be the case) they would possibly have passed through earlier decision gates but then reached a point where the business case was no longer viable and therefore decided to pull out. From their perspective it is probably the wise decision.

Given this latest development, I now strongly believe this competition is LM's to lose.
 
It changed enough two-years ago that they thought it then was worth an investment in a cleansheet design. Probably given that the performance requirements went up and there was a lot of hinting about a built in combat role being desirable.
My guess is that after a month of reviewing the actual RFP they decided the margin involved was not worth continuing to invest in the program. Particularly if they thought the requirements were not weighted in such a way to make their new design a favourite. Not much point in spending money to enter a Cadillac in a daily driver comp, or vicenversa, a bare bones offer for a customer that wants all the bells and whistles. Or a customer that says it wants all the bells and whistles but at a barebones price tag. Something changed materially between the RFI's of two years ago the December RFP for them to spend a month crunching numbers and to walk away saying, "Not worth the investment".
 
GTX said:
Given this latest development, I now strongly believe this competition is LM's to lose.
Click to expand...

My opinion as well. An existing design, so low-risk, low-cost. Probably meets the bare minimum requirement. Also, I've always thought they'd have a leg up on the non-airframe systems and integration given it is a lead in for the F-22 and F-35.
 
GTX said:
Given this latest development, I now strongly believe this competition is LM's to lose.
Click to expand...

For a programme that's supposedly focused on cost, the USAF is going to end up with the most expensive trainer money can buy (but most capable). What a joke.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom