USAF T-X

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 3,765

Its about time that this competition gets its own topic.

USAF will downgrade T-X requirements to shave cost
By: DAN PARSONSWASHINGTON DC Source: Flightglobal.com 19 hours ago
In an effort to reduce cost and speed up its often snail-paced acquisition system, the US Air Force intends to water down the capabilities it expects to see in a new jet trainer, as well as several other ongoing acquisition programmes.

USAF Secretary Deborah Lee James said on 14 January that the Air Force is specifically targeting four programmes for capabilities downgrades, including the T-X trainer replacement for the Northrop Grumman T-38 jet trainer. Also in the crosshairs of the so-called cost-capability analysis (CCA) programme are the long-range standoff weapon, the follow-on to the space-based infrared system (SIBRS) and the multi-domain adaptable processing system (MAPS), which is envisioned as a pod to enable communications between stealth fighters.

“By gathering data from a range of sources it should be possible to identify instances where small changes in capability could have a major effect on cost,” James said during a speech at the Atlantic Council in Washington, DC.

The four programmes will be the first to undergo what will be a “specific industry engagement process” to identify capability reductions that the air force could stomach if they are offset with significant cost savings.

“Say we have a requirement for a new jet to fly 500mph, but discovered we could achieve significant cost savings if we amended the requirement to 450mph,” James offered as a hypothetical scenario. “Maybe we might choose to modify that requirement.”

James said the Air Force was about two years from issuing a request for proposals (RFP) on the T-X programme, but did not offer specific examples of what capability requirements might be amended. The program will consider alteration of both “higher level” and “bare bones” requirements, she says.

The air force still refuses to water down the requirements for its top three modernization programmes: the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, the Boeing KC-46 aerial refueling tanker and a new long-range strike bomber. James specifically mentioned the bomber replacement in her remarks.

“It is one of our top three acquisition priorities,” she said. “It is a new programme that is highly classified. There have been no changes to speak of in the parameters, but when we roll out the FY16 budget, it will similar to what was projected in the FY15 budget.”

The Obama administration is expected to publish its budget in early February.

The air force suffers from systemic acquisition sluggishness, James says. In sole-source cases where there is a single known supplier, it takes an average of 17 months to award a contract, she says. Several initiatives are aimed at bringing that gulf to single digits.

Later this month at George Mason University, the air force will unveil the PlugFest Play initiative where it will solicit industry demonstrations of specific technologies with the intention of awarding a contract within months. The first system to undergo the operation will be the distributed common ground system, which collects and distributes multiple sources of signals intelligence for both the air force and Army.

James also announced a $2 million X-Prize for a midsize turbofan engine that could power both commercial and military aircraft.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-will-downgrade-t-x-requirements-to-shave-cost-407923/

The BAE/Northrop chaps must be feeling very, very smug by now, on the other hand LM and KAI offer just took a body blow...

Original post

Member for

19 years 6 months

Posts: 1,518

Interesting news indeed. I did think the USAF might be tempted to write the requirements around a US design, but this does play into BAE/Northrop's hands.

That said, didn't BAE lose out in Poland partly down to costs?

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 3,765

Interesting news indeed. I did think the USAF might be tempted to write the requirements around a US design, but this does play into BAE/Northrop's hands.

That said, didn't BAE lose out in Poland partly down to costs?

It was more the oposite, it was not that the BAE was extremely expensive (it was in the midle) but the Alenia Aermachi offer was vastly inferior in costs over the other two competitors.
But the thing is, whatever aircraft is chosen, it will be built in the States, that levels the production costs; in this case the smaller aircraft, with the least thrust has an obvious advantage, on top of that there are hundreds of a very similar aircraft with the US Navy logo on it, the logistical advantage is also obvious.
It can go to any other airframe, but if the USAF is willing to water down the performance KPP´s in order to lower costs i am willing to bet that the Northrop chap responsable for the T/X offer is wearing a very bright smile on is face, the LM equivalent on the other side...

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 5,396

From an acquisition perspective, dumbing down the requirements is typically done to keep all the dogs in the hunt. It doesn't guarantee the least capable/lowest cost bidder will win.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

Thats true, but I think they may seriously be making an effort here to really easy and simplify the development and acquisition process in order to pick the lowest cost/ lowest risk solution. Progressively emphasizing that aspect would hopefully bake that into contenders and reflect in their ultimate proposals

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 3,259

From an acquisition perspective, dumbing down the requirements is typically done to keep all the dogs in the hunt. It doesn't guarantee the least capable/lowest cost bidder will win.

actually, it does.

should they select anything but the lowest bidder, they'd face legal action as the lowest bidder could claim it satisfied the requirements and, therefore, should be selected as a better deal.

remember the tanker bidding, even if airbus was more capable and preferred to boeing, boeing managed to cancel the airbus selection through legal action and get the market

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 5,396

Successful acquisitions have to pass through two gates before reaching the desk of the Source Selection Authority, SSA.

The first gate is a technical assessment. The government technical evaluation team determines if KPPs thresholds have been met. Low KPP/KSA thresholds are a way to dumb down the requirements and keep all the dogs in the hunt. If thresholds are not met, the bid is disqualified. And the government technical team can determine a threshold has not been met even if the bidder believes it was. Exceeding thresholds and achieving stated KPP "goals" can get a bidder special consideration by the SSA, even if the bidder's price is high. The government sets a cost value in achieving KPP goals.

The second gate is a cost assessment. The government cost evaluation team determines how much to "plus-up" bidder costs to compensate for inadequately mitigated development risk. And there are always multiple risks in every bid. The "plus-ups" can be substantial. It is the "plus-up" costs that go to the SSA.

The SSA reviews the government team's technical and cost assessments and makes his/her own independent evaluation. That evaluation can include factors not contained in the RFP, such as health of the industrial base or convenience of the government. The SSA has the final say about who provides the "best value" to the government and wins the contract. Note that "best value" is not necessarily the cheapest price. If there is a bidder who has shown the ability to achieve KPP goals, that bidder could win for providing "best value" even if his price is not the lowest.

Member for

17 years 7 months

Posts: 4,951

I'm still expecting supersonic and will be disappointed if its performance is worse compared to T-38A.

Member for

13 years 3 months

Posts: 3,337

If costs are going to be such a big factor then the Boeing-Saab consortium may not be in too good a position with a clean-sheet design offering..adding the costs of research and development to the price tag will make their offering quite a bit costlier, especially when compared to the Hawk and M-346 offerings.

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 6,983

impressive (Textron AirLand’s Scorpion)
The design met its $3,000/h operating cost target in its first year, and demonstrated a 95% availability rate

Member for

12 years

Posts: 498

Just select the T-50 and be done with it.

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 2,163

If costs are going to be such a big factor then the Boeing-Saab consortium may not be in too good a position with a clean-sheet design offering...

I was under the impression it wasn't quite a full clean-sheet...?

Certainly, if it was me in charge - I'd be doing an investigation into how much cheaper a non-Afterburning Gripen C/D without full mission avionics would be in both build and maintenance costs.

I would also then investigate how quick and expensive it would be to refit an afterburning engine and mission avionics as a means to augment front line strength if required.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

I think SAAB has categorically denied that this would be a dumbed down Gripen.

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 2,163

I think SAAB has categorically denied that this would be a dumbed down Gripen.

This?

http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-and-saab-propose-gripen-t-x

Update: On Sept. 12, Lennart Sindahl, Saab´s execuctive vice president and head of Saab’s Business Area Aeronautics, sought to clarify the company’s position regarding a potential teaming arrangement with Boeing on the T-X program using a Gripen derivative.

“With the new development of the Gripen E version we expect it to remain in that position for many years to come. But a great fighter aircraft does not necessarily make a good trainer. We remain focused on the continued development of the Gripen E and the fighter will never be a trainer,” Sindahl says. “As we stated previously, Saab always keeps its doors open to new business opportunities and if any of those should be further realized, they would be announced at the appropriate time.”

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 2,163

Ah, OK, this would suggest its def not based off Gripen:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140713/DEFREG01/307130014/Boeing-Defense-Head-Saab-Team-Up-Offers-Forward-Thinking-Approach-

When Boeing and Saab unveil their co-design of a new trainer for the US Air Force, it will look different from the Swedish firm’s Gripen fighter, the head of Boeing’s defense arm said Sunday.

“I can unequivocally tell you it’s not Gripen, or son of Gripen,” Chris Chadwick said during a media briefing held at Boeing’s London office ahead of this week’s Farnborough International Airshow.

Not sure I agree with their decision, but there you go.

Member for

9 years 8 months

Posts: 1,123

I wonder, couldn't they reuse old APG-68s from the retired F-16s for basic air defense roles. Maybe the FA-50 could be equipped with it with minor modifications. It would be great if the trainer had an air to air capability for air policing at minimum cost.

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 2,163

I wonder, couldn't they reuse old APG-68s from the retired F-16s for basic air defense roles. Maybe the FA-50 could be equipped with it with minor modifications. It would be great if the trainer had an air to air capability for air policing at minimum cost.

Same for the proposal From Boab (pronounced Bob ;)) - forget about the RWR etc. Just add a PS-05/A to the nose...

Member for

9 years 8 months

Posts: 1,123

Same for the proposal From Boab (pronounced Bob ;)) - forget about the RWR etc. Just add a PS-05/A to the nose...

I was thinking more of reusing existing radars. They could take radars from F-16s stored at AMARG that cannot be reactivated. Say APG-66s, and maybe take the IFFs from the F-16 ADFs.

I don't think the USAF would want to spend much on air to air capabilities for the TX. They want to keep the cost as low as possible.

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 3,259

TX-32 anybody? :D

as affordable stealth trainer? ^^