T-X RFP drops

The Air Force has released the final RFP for the T-X program, and it's an interesting one. The value of the RFP is $16.3B, encompassing 350 aircraft. It includes delivery of the first 5 development aircraft, and contract options for LRIP 1 and 2, and Full Rate Production lots 3 through 11.

Selection is expected by the middle of next year, with IOC by fourth quarter 2024. It continues to include the incentive scale released over the summer. The scale allows for up to $88M in cost reductions for aircraft that exceed the RFP performance requirements.

www.flightglobal.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

Do we have any side by side pictures of all the contenders?

a reply to: Crumbles

No, only the individual pictures released by each company.

I really like the look of the Boeing entry and despite the qualifications of all of the contenders I think a clean sheet design would be the way to go. Especially one that offers low operating costs and the ability to perform light attack.

I also think that the incoming administration will either tacitly or actively encourage more consolidation with either Lockmart or Boeing buying one of the smaller competitors. ie. Northrop Grumman

The only one that I don't think has a chance is the SNC/Turkish entry which will be killed for political reasons

a reply to: FredT

My money is on an existing platform. They're going to want good numbers for cost and a clean sheet won't have those yet.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm surprised, we haven't heard a thing from Northrop about their entry since those pics were shown.

a reply to: Northernhollow

There have been a few tidbits, such as first flight, but they've been quiet about their aircraft. A few people that watch the industry have commented on that.

Question... With Trump's oft cited declaration that the US comes first, will this influence the choice. For example, which of the contenders are mostly American? Assembly, parts and all?

If I recall, a criticism of a previous Boeing bid was that although the company is American, many of the parts were made in China.

a reply to: paraphi

The only one that I can see being outright killed over that is Sierra Nevada, because they're partnered with Turkey.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Someone should make one for good measure. Looks aren't everything, but it'd be a nice start to compare side by sides. I'm on a phone or I'd do it myself.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That doesn't sound good...

a reply to: Barnalby

Could be good, could be bad. It may just be that they don't want to give anything away that they don't have to, so are keeping things quiet.

a reply to: Zaphod58

One thing that jumps out to me is that the Northrop entrant seems to have much more extensive RCS reduction, at least in terms of shape, than any of the other entrants, all of which are pretty clearly just meant to be trainers.

The combination of stealth shaping, composite construction and light overall weight, to me, screams that they're quietly trying to offer an entrant that could very easily be turned into a gen 4.5 equivalent of the F-5, offering reduced RCS for pennies on the dollar to countries who can't afford or be cleared for the F-35 and really needed more of a stealthy interceptor than a day one strike platform, anyways.

That would also explain why SAAB partnered with Northrop's strongest competition. A low-RCS "F-5 2.0" would be an absolute Gripen Slayer on the export market to anyone who wanted to buy western, especially with the way that the J-31 is looking to proliferate if that $70m/airframe rumor holds true.

a reply to: Barnalby

Foreign sales is a huge area all contenders are watching. While the T-50 and M346 are offered already, the aircraft as they are flying now don't lend themselves to 5th Gen training. With the F-35 going to be operating all over, nations operating them will require an aircraft that does. Having a reduced RCS, even somewhat, will also lend itself to both Red Air, and a better light attack role for some of those nations.

originally posted by: Barnalby
a reply to: Zaphod58

One thing that jumps out to me is that the Northrop entrant seems to have much more extensive RCS reduction, at least in terms of shape, than any of the other entrants, all of which are pretty clearly just meant to be trainers.

The combination of stealth shaping, composite construction and light overall weight, to me, screams that they're quietly trying to offer an entrant that could very easily be turned into a gen 4.5 equivalent of the F-5, offering reduced RCS for pennies on the dollar to countries who can't afford or be cleared for the F-35 and really needed more of a stealthy interceptor than a day one strike platform, anyways.

That might be a reason that internal DoD politics might toss the Northrop bid: because it would look so good as a light attack that Congress would transfer some future F-35 money over to a militarized version of this one for deployment.

There are nations which were expecting the next generation of F-16, and not what the F-35 came out to be. Since nobody can get a F-22, what about a high-low F-35/ "F-38" mix? I bet Israel would do it.

a reply to: mbkennel

Ironically, the Northrop bird would be a better 21st century Mirage than the Eurofighter-killer Rafale in terms of cost/capabilities.

a reply to: Barnalby

What's wrong with the Rafale? It seems superficially to me that it should be great, and yet nobody's buying any.

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: Barnalby

What's wrong with the Rafale? It seems superficially to me that it should be great, and yet nobody's buying any.

I am not sure why @Barnalby thinks that a trainer aircraft would be a better 21st century Mirage, but modern aircraft are expensive to buy and to fly. Successful sells often include technology transfers and local production setups. So it is not about having the best aircraft but more about getting the most for your money.