Read the forum code of contact
By: 15th January 2015 at 19:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-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?
By: 15th January 2015 at 20:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-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...
By: 15th January 2015 at 21:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-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.
By: 15th January 2015 at 22:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-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
By: 16th January 2015 at 04:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-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
By: 16th January 2015 at 05:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-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.
By: 16th January 2015 at 08:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I'm still expecting supersonic and will be disappointed if its performance is worse compared to T-38A.
By: 16th January 2015 at 09:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-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.
By: 16th January 2015 at 09:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The reduced spec might suit this http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/scorpion-team-reveals-design-changes-sales-target-for-407943/
Regards
By: 16th January 2015 at 10:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-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
By: 16th January 2015 at 11:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The reduced spec might suit this http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/scorpion-team-reveals-design-changes-sales-target-for-407943/Regards
The Scorpion is a 800 km/h / 6 G aircraft, thats reducing the spec by a huge amount, so much in fact, that sudenly things like a PC-21, or an uprated T-6 would look apealing.
By: 16th January 2015 at 11:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Just select the T-50 and be done with it.
By: 16th January 2015 at 12:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-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.
By: 16th January 2015 at 12:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I think SAAB has categorically denied that this would be a dumbed down Gripen.
By: 16th January 2015 at 13:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-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.”
By: 16th January 2015 at 13:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Ah, OK, this would suggest its def not based off Gripen:
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.
By: 16th January 2015 at 13:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-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.
By: 16th January 2015 at 13:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-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...
By: 16th January 2015 at 14:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-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.
By: 16th January 2015 at 15:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-TX-32 anybody? :D
as affordable stealth trainer? ^^
Posts: 3,765
By: Sintra - 15th January 2015 at 18:27
Its about time that this competition gets its own topic.
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...