himself wrote:

Good luck with that. AIDC is still three years away from first flight. It does not look like they'll make the T-X competition at this rate.

And it's not as if U.S. primes are too keen on fronting for other OEMs. As it is, Leonardo have decided to go it alone by themselves.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ne-433970/

Quote:
"Leonardo has decided to compete for the US Air Force’s $16 billion T-X trainer contract despite the withdrawal last month of Raytheon as the company’s US partner and prime contractor.

The decision by the Italian manufacturer creates and at least three-way competition for the contract to replace the Northrop T-38C with 350 new aircraft and training systems, with Boeing/Saab offering a clean-sheet design and Lockheed Martin/Korea Aerospace Industries proposing a slightly modified T-50A.

Leonardo’s US-based subsidiary, Leonardo DRS, will serve as prime contractor for a bid based on the T-100, a slightly modified variant of the M-346 trainer in service with Italy and Israel."

Devilfish wrote:

himself wrote:

Good luck with that. AIDC is still three years away from first flight. It does not look like they'll make the T-X competition at this rate.

And it's not as if U.S. primes are too keen on fronting for other OEMs. As it is, Leonardo have decided to go it alone by themselves.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ne-433970/

Quote:
"Leonardo has decided to compete for the US Air Force’s $16 billion T-X trainer contract despite the withdrawal last month of Raytheon as the company’s US partner and prime contractor.

The decision by the Italian manufacturer creates and at least three-way competition for the contract to replace the Northrop T-38C with 350 new aircraft and training systems, with Boeing/Saab offering a clean-sheet design and Lockheed Martin/Korea Aerospace Industries proposing a slightly modified T-50A.

Leonardo’s US-based subsidiary, Leonardo DRS, will serve as prime contractor for a bid based on the T-100, a slightly modified variant of the M-346 trainer in service with Italy and Israel."

Don't see how Leonardo can win this considering that Raytheon considered the T-100 to be priced too high to be successful.

ThePointblank wrote:

Don't see how Leonardo can win this considering that Raytheon considered the T-100 to be priced too high to be successful.

I cannot see them winning without either a US partner, a vastly superior product or a price substantially lower than Lockheed or Boeing. They don't have a partner because they would not lower the price to Raytheon's liking and their product is probably in par with what Boeing and LM is offering.

But is the Leonardo/Raytheon issue one of Raytheon needing to take cut of the program profits. Just like NG /Airbus and the KC45. Once NG realized how much lower Boeings likely price was for the rebid, they quit but EADS still felt they could compete and make money without a middleman taking a cut. Leonardo may be able to drop the cost sufficiently to be competitive but not if NG has to take a cut too. They offered to drop their price for the Taiwan contract by almost 30% before they went local.

trex8 wrote:

But is the Leonardo/Raytheon issue one of Raytheon needing to take cut of the program profits. Just like NG /Airbus and the KC45. Once NG realized how much lower Boeings likely price was for the rebid, they quit but EADS still felt they could compete and make money without a middleman taking a cut. Leonardo may be able to drop the cost sufficiently to be competitive but not if NG has to take a cut too. They offered to drop their price for the Taiwan contract by almost 30% before they went local.

I don't think the price issue is insurmountable; Raytheon though that the price that was going to be offered for the T-100 was several millions of dollars too high. Remember that the T-100 of the 3 being offered is the aircraft with the lowest performance; it's easily the slowest of the 3 options, and is slower than the T-38 Talon. Remember that Northrop Grumman originally was going to propose the very similar BAE Hawk as their offering before deciding to offer a higher performance clean sheet offering (which they then decided not to participate).

Clearly, Raytheon though that the only chance the T-100 would have would be to play as the most cheapest, economical offering of the three, and avoid a showdown on performance, which it would clearly loose. With how the requirements on T-X are evolving, the T-100 would fall on the very low end, and may have problems meeting some of the requirements as set forth.

trex8 wrote:

But is the Leonardo/Raytheon issue one of Raytheon needing to take cut of the program profits. Just like NG /Airbus and the KC45. Once NG realized how much lower Boeings likely price was for the rebid, they quit but EADS still felt they could compete and make money without a middleman taking a cut. Leonardo may be able to drop the cost sufficiently to be competitive but not if NG has to take a cut too. They offered to drop their price for the Taiwan contract by almost 30% before they went local.

Boeing is doing a clean sheet design yet is projected to be able to underbid the field? What am I missing here? Is this another deal where they bid low and end up eating huge cost overruns later, hoping to make up for it via additional sales and/or via spares and services?

Seems they've already built two EMD-ready units out of their own funds. Isn't that going to add cost to the program?

Revelation wrote:

trex8 wrote:

But is the Leonardo/Raytheon issue one of Raytheon needing to take cut of the program profits. Just like NG /Airbus and the KC45. Once NG realized how much lower Boeings likely price was for the rebid, they quit but EADS still felt they could compete and make money without a middleman taking a cut. Leonardo may be able to drop the cost sufficiently to be competitive but not if NG has to take a cut too. They offered to drop their price for the Taiwan contract by almost 30% before they went local.

Boeing is doing a clean sheet design yet is projected to be able to underbid the field? What am I missing here? Is this another deal where they bid low and end up eating huge cost overruns later, hoping to make up for it via additional sales and/or via spares and services?

Seems they've already built two EMD-ready units out of their own funds. Isn't that going to add cost to the program?

That's why I think LM will walk away with this contract. You have a situation where LM has the most capable and most mature option at a fairly reasonable price, and their offering has a established production line and supply chain, meaning that their offering overall has less risk compared to Boeing. As long as LM keeps the costs fairly reasonable, they probably will win this on the price/performance/risk analysis alone.

Leonardo, since it can't fight on capabilities, will have to compete on cost alone. That's why when they were partnered with Raytheon, Raytheon was trying very hard to get the price of the T-100 down to as low as it can go before deciding to bow out.

Boeing deciding to go with a clean sheet proposal will have an aircraft that will match the T-50A on performance, easily. The problem would be costs and risk; there's a lot of risk with the Boeing proposal because it is a clean sheet design with no established production line. We've already seen Boeing badly misjudge the technical risks for what was a much less technically challenging program in the KC-46; a clean sheet option just raises the risk of things going terribly wrong and over budget.

Boeing has very deep pockets and wants to win. If their design can beat out Lockheed's then my hat is off to them. The production site is already built, workers are in place, infastructure/support is ready. The F-15 and F/A-18 just won major orders bringing in money to help support this endeavor if necessary. Let us it forget the other major programs whether under production or under major support by Boeing that bring in fiscal resources that can be used to help the TX. F-15, F/A-18, B-1, B-52, C-17, KC-135, KC-10, CV-22, CH-47.

Winning this contract is a 350 minimum aircraft order that will need to be supported for at least 35 years.

CX747 wrote:

Boeing has very deep pockets and wants to win. If their design can beat out Lockheed's then my hat is off to them. The production site is already built, workers are in place, infastructure/support is ready. The F-15 and F/A-18 just won major orders bringing in money to help support this endeavor if necessary. Let us it forget the other major programs whether under production or under major support by Boeing that bring in fiscal resources that can be used to help the TX. F-15, F/A-18, B-1, B-52, C-17, KC-135, KC-10, CV-22, CH-47.

Winning this contract is a 350 minimum aircraft order that will need to be supported for at least 35 years.

I can't give it to Boeing in terms of lower production risk for T-X.

Sure, there is capacity in St. Louis, MO but I'd be willing to bet LM has as much space as needed in Greenville, SC for the planned production rates (The current schedule calls for a FRP of 4 aircraft per month starting in FY25 and drawing down in FY30.)

Focusing on the final assembly capacity is kind of looking in the wrong place. Aircraft production today is much more horizontally integrated than it used to be and the vast majority of the aircraft structures, hydraulics, fuel system components, wiring harnesses, actuators, circuit cards, etc are all coming in from outside vendors. Boeing has a clean sheet design that has never been produced before in a production environment; you can bet there will be significant issues with getting the suppliers producing the components on time, on cost, and at the quality needed for the first few years.

This is why, with respect to production risk, I give the clear nod to LM/KAI as they have a fully established and integrated supply chain with attendant approved first articles and demonstrated production quality. For LM and KAI, it will just be a matter of ramping up production to meet production targets; they have a supply chain already going.

If you are interested and have the time, the entire solicitation is here:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity ... e&_cview=1

CX747 wrote:

Boeing has very deep pockets and wants to win. If their design can beat out Lockheed's then my hat is off to them. The production site is already built, workers are in place, infastructure/support is ready. The F-15 and F/A-18 just won major orders bringing in money to help support this endeavor if necessary. Let us it forget the other major programs whether under production or under major support by Boeing that bring in fiscal resources that can be used to help the TX. F-15, F/A-18, B-1, B-52, C-17, KC-135, KC-10, CV-22, CH-47.

Winning this contract is a 350 minimum aircraft order that will need to be supported for at least 35 years.

The problem/issue is that the way government contracts are written, you aren't supposed to use those other fiscal resources to make the program whole. You're supposed to project the program cost and hit the target, regardless of whether or not it's a fixed priced contract or not.

In the case of KC-46, http://breakingdefense.com/2015/09/rand ... rol-costs/ suggests the R&D budget was $4.9B and we read in recent threads that Boeing has blown past that by $2B already, with more milestones left to go. That's a 40% miss!

Perhaps the government shouldn't care because Boeing is eating the overruns, but it does make a mockery of the process.

In theory Boeing is going to have to pay penalties for late deliveries but I haven't read of a final resolution of that.

Boeing will eat the cost overruns and the USAF will get their tanker. It is not making a mockery of the process, just the reality of this particular contract. I'm hoping the clean sheet/new Boeing design wins because I would like to see a new bird in the sky. Not a bird from another competition etc.

CX747 wrote:

Boeing will eat the cost overruns and the USAF will get their tanker. It is not making a mockery of the process, just the reality of this particular contract. I'm hoping the clean sheet/new Boeing design wins because I would like to see a new bird in the sky. Not a bird from another competition etc.

But the USAF is paying for delayed deliveries by having to keep aircraft that should have been retired in the air. That's a real cost to them.

ThePointblank wrote:

CX747 wrote:

Boeing will eat the cost overruns and the USAF will get their tanker. It is not making a mockery of the process, just the reality of this particular contract. I'm hoping the clean sheet/new Boeing design wins because I would like to see a new bird in the sky. Not a bird from another competition etc.

But the USAF is paying for delayed deliveries by having to keep aircraft that should have been retired in the air. That's a real cost to them.

Just curious, how many should have been delivered by now ?

I too would like to see a new aircraft type when the tender, not fussed who it's made by. It's just nice to see new aircraft types grace the skies.

jupiter2 wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

CX747 wrote:

Boeing will eat the cost overruns and the USAF will get their tanker. It is not making a mockery of the process, just the reality of this particular contract. I'm hoping the clean sheet/new Boeing design wins because I would like to see a new bird in the sky. Not a bird from another competition etc.

But the USAF is paying for delayed deliveries by having to keep aircraft that should have been retired in the air. That's a real cost to them.

Just curious, how many should have been delivered by now ?

I too would like to see a new aircraft type when the tender, not fussed who it's made by. It's just nice to see new aircraft types grace the skies.

None delivered yet, but first deliveries were meant to start in March 2017 and 18 were meant to be delivered by August 2017. However, deliveries of those 18 wont now start until August, and will be completed in January 2018.

moo wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

But the USAF is paying for delayed deliveries by having to keep aircraft that should have been retired in the air. That's a real cost to them.

Just curious, how many should have been delivered by now ?

I too would like to see a new aircraft type when the tender, not fussed who it's made by. It's just nice to see new aircraft types grace the skies.

None delivered yet, but first deliveries were meant to start in March 2017 and 18 were meant to be delivered by August 2017. However, deliveries of those 18 wont now start until August, and will be completed in January 2018.

So about a 5 month delay, not great, but hardly earth shattering either.

ThePointblank wrote:

CX747 wrote:

Boeing will eat the cost overruns and the USAF will get their tanker. It is not making a mockery of the process, just the reality of this particular contract. I'm hoping the clean sheet/new Boeing design wins because I would like to see a new bird in the sky. Not a bird from another competition etc.

But the USAF is paying for delayed deliveries by having to keep aircraft that should have been retired in the air. That's a real cost to them.

Yep, so if we see Boeing win the award with the clean sheet bid, the USAF will need to be prepared to keep those Talons flying a few more years.

What could go wrong, they're younger than the KC-135s at forty years old...

Revelation wrote:

Boeing is doing a clean sheet design yet is projected to be able to underbid the field? What am I missing here? Is this another deal where they bid low and end up eating huge cost overruns later, hoping to make up for it via additional sales and/or via spares and services?

Seems they've already built two EMD-ready units out of their own funds. Isn't that going to add cost to the program?

Are you saying that there is no room to cut costs for building plane? Back when the presented their first model, last year, they said they found a way to "shatter the cost curve" using 3D printing and advanced adhesives. Imagine how much Boeing saves by having major assemblies printed and glued into place, rather than machined and bolted on.


You can tell the nose gear door is 3D-printed.

himself wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Boeing is doing a clean sheet design yet is projected to be able to underbid the field? What am I missing here? Is this another deal where they bid low and end up eating huge cost overruns later, hoping to make up for it via additional sales and/or via spares and services?

Seems they've already built two EMD-ready units out of their own funds. Isn't that going to add cost to the program?

Are you saying that there is no room to cut costs for building plane? Back when the presented their first model, last year, they said they found a way to "shatter the cost curve" using 3D printing and advanced adhesives. Imagine how much Boeing saves by having major assemblies printed and glued into place, rather than machined and bolted on.


You can tell the nose gear door is 3D-printed.

Building 2 prototypes that haven't flown verses building an aircraft that actually has to be designed for production are two very different things. Boeing might experience problems with getting suppliers geared up on time and they may discover that they will have to redesign parts to make them suitable for production. 3D printing and advanced adhesives are not magic bullets when it comes to cutting costs in production; they work really good for cutting costs in the prototyping stage. Once you reach mass production, traditional methods easily stand alone in terms of speed and costs.

ThePointblank wrote:

Building 2 prototypes that haven't flown verses building an aircraft that actually has to be designed for production are two very different things. Boeing might experience problems with getting suppliers geared up on time and they may discover that they will have to redesign parts to make them suitable for production. 3D printing and advanced adhesives are not magic bullets when it comes to cutting costs in production; they work really good for cutting costs in the prototyping stage. Once you reach mass production, traditional methods easily stand alone in terms of speed and costs.

The last time Boeing entered one of these competitions and got to the fly off stage, their fly off contender wasn't representative of the final offering Boeing were basing the proposal off of - they went to great effort to stress that, and lost, because their opponents fly off contender *was* representative of their final offering.

Although as it turns out, the X-35 and the F-35 have basically no shared heritage other than their looks.

moo wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Building 2 prototypes that haven't flown verses building an aircraft that actually has to be designed for production are two very different things. Boeing might experience problems with getting suppliers geared up on time and they may discover that they will have to redesign parts to make them suitable for production. 3D printing and advanced adhesives are not magic bullets when it comes to cutting costs in production; they work really good for cutting costs in the prototyping stage. Once you reach mass production, traditional methods easily stand alone in terms of speed and costs.

The last time Boeing entered one of these competitions and got to the fly off stage, their fly off contender wasn't representative of the final offering Boeing were basing the proposal off of - they went to great effort to stress that, and lost, because their opponents fly off contender *was* representative of their final offering.

Although as it turns out, the X-35 and the F-35 have basically no shared heritage other than their looks.

That was to be expected during that competition, the fly offs were supposed to demonstrate their concepts.

The X-35 demonstrated in real life the lift-fan concept. Boeing was struggling to demo the X-32 with its direct lift system, and they also demonstrated that their method was still vulnerable to hot gas ingestion.

Boeing also had trouble manufacturing their proposed 1-piece wing design, and thus combined, they had to propose as their final aircraft a totally different design compared to what they demonstrated.

Interesting commentary in AvWeek's Opinion: T-X Is Lockheed’s To Lose, And Boeing’s To Win (free reg is required):

The two dropouts left for a reason. The final T-X request for proposals (RFP), released in late December, basically constitutes a price shootout, not too different from the KC-X aerial refueling tanker competition. The RFP gives a price adjustment for superior performance but with a maximum that is less than $400 million, for a contract valued at over $16 billion. Improved maintenance costs do not count either, since there is merely a maximum life-cycle cost, with no credit for anything lower.

Meanwhile, T-X development cost overruns beyond a certain point will be borne by the contractor. The KC-X program used this formula too, resulting in Boeing’s $1.5 billion in KC-46 losses.

A contractor persisting in these circumstances needs either an off-the-shelf platform or a strategic imperative to win a U.S. military aircraft contract. Lockheed Martin has the former, while Boeing has the latter.

It goes on to point out that since both airframes share the same engine it will be hard for either vendor to claim superior performance. It also talks about how Boeing will probably have to make an argument that there's a big market out there to write off the development costs against (and LM won't since they are largely written off already), but not too many customers are looking for supersonic trainers. Therefore to win Boeing will have to use a large number of airframes produced to make the numbers work, but in the end it won't sell that many so will have to eat a lot of losses.

It's rock and hard place time for Boeing: how bad do they want this deal? Also will USAF be OK with another specious deal where it knows going in that there will be lots of risks and almost certainly budget and schedule overruns that will be problematic for both Boeing and the USAF, or is it OK with that?

My very cynical side suggests to me that the brass at both Boeing and USAF want the shiny new toy and want to be able to add closing this deal to their resumes, and know that their successors are the ones that will deal with all the heartburn.

I picture another photo op for The Donald showing how he kept jobs away from those nasty Koreans with Boeing execs doing their best to get into all the pictures.

Perhaps Leonardo is hedging its bet by being able to bid low without Raytheon, and then leveraging their ongoing Fighter Attack developments as the M-346's capability upgrade path further down the road?.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... fa-434448/

Quote:
"Leonardo has used the IDEX exhibition in Abu Dhabi to unveil plans to produce a new fighter/attack (FA) version of Aermacchi M-346, to be available from next year.

'The new version has been conceived to take advantage of the performances and the introduction of an enhanced mission configuration, based on the proven Grifo-346 multimode radar, to accomplish air-to-air and air-to-surface operations,' says Leonardo aircraft division marketing and sales representative Eduardo Munhos De Campos. 'The fighter/attack model will be available from the end of 2018,' he adds.

Munhos De Campos says the new model will benefit from Leonardo’s activities to take the M-346 advanced jet trainer to a new fighter trainer (FT) version, capable of conducting training and operational missions. Retaining the baseline type's avionics, in-flight refuelling capability and five external hardpoints, the FT version is being certified to drop guided and unguided bombs and carry gun pods, short-range air-to-air missiles and Rafael's Reccelite reconnaissance and targeting pods."



http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/geta ... emid=69669

Devilfish wrote:

Perhaps Leonardo is hedging its bet by being able to bid low without Raytheon, and then leveraging their ongoing Fighter Attack developments as the M-346's capability upgrade path further down the road?.....

The T-X requirements won't give any extra credit to aid them winning the competition. If this is Leonardo's intent they are wasting their money. More likely, they see it as an opportunity to sell additional airframes to small cash strapped nations wanting some jet capability.

ThePointblank wrote:

Boeing deciding to go with a clean sheet proposal will have an aircraft that will match the T-50A on performance, easily. The problem would be costs and risk; there's a lot of risk with the Boeing proposal because it is a clean sheet design with no established production line. We've already seen Boeing badly misjudge the technical risks for what was a much less technically challenging program in the KC-46; a clean sheet option just raises the risk of things going terribly wrong and over budget.

You're comparing apples and oranges here. Just because Boeing has had issues with the KC-46 does not mean it will have the same kind of issues with the T-X. The operations in Everett and St. Louis are completely separate operations. Also if that's your litmus test may I point out the issues LM has had with the F-35. Don't see you bringing that to light regarding the T-50.

Also the KC-46 is a much more complex aircraft and Boeing has not developed/built tankers in a long time. Add to that the added layer of bureaucracy with the FAA involvement in getting the 767-2C certificated. Something the T-X does not have to contend with.

LMP737 wrote:

You're comparing apples and oranges here. Just because Boeing has had issues with the KC-46 does not mean it will have the same kind of issues with the T-X. The operations in Everett and St. Louis are completely separate operations.

It's a correct assessment. We are talking about a brand new aircraft design being put forth by Boeing; it has never been in production before, and it hasn't even been flight tested yet. The risks are huge because it is an all-new design.

Boeing has two sets of risk involved with their T-X offering; development risk and production risk. Because their offering is brand new and never been flown before, they need to get their aircraft through development testing quickly, and hope that it goes off without a hitch. And it's both flight testing, to make sure the aircraft meets the expected performance, determine the handling characteristics, and conduct testing to make sure that the aircraft is structurally sound for the expected life expectancy of the aircraft.

I also expect Boeing to have to redesign components for their T-X offering to make them more suitable to the design; I imagine that Boeing quickly pulled components off the shelf from other aircraft they are making together to so they can get a prototype ready to show to the USAF. They will then go back if they are awarded the contract to redesign many of the components so they are more suited for the aircraft, and this process does entail a lot of risk.

Boeing also has to deal with production risk; they need to make sure that they can build their aircraft in production, and make sure that their suppliers can follow through. That means that their suppliers need to tool up to supply the parts and sub-components, and that this process occurs on schedule and at the expected cost. Also, Boeing needs to make sure that the sub-components and parts they have selected and designed can be produced in a production environment; if they find that a certain casting for say, a frame element causes too many rejects at the sub-contractor, or requires a lot of material to be wasted during the production process, they will have to redesign the component to make it more economical for production.

LMP737 wrote:

Also if that's your litmus test may I point out the issues LM has had with the F-35. Don't see you bringing that to light regarding the T-50

I don't see LM having the same issues with their T-50 compared to what happened with the F-35; for one, LM is proposing what is essentially an off-the-shelf design that's already in production with some tweaks. Their aircraft is already flying and is in production. All they have to worry about is getting the production rate to ramp up to where they need it to be. Considering that the current schedule calls for a FRP of 4 aircraft per month starting in FY25 and drawing down in FY30, that's easily achievable for them with their sub-contractors.

LMP737 wrote:

Also the KC-46 is a much more complex aircraft and Boeing has not developed/built tankers in a long time. Add to that the added layer of bureaucracy with the FAA involvement in getting the 767-2C certificated. Something the T-X does not have to contend with.

On this, I will remind you that Boeing has never successfully developed a brand new fighter or trainer design since the late 1930's... most of their current fighter jet experience is from when they bought McDonnell Douglas, and that experience is already close to two decades ago; the experience that was there has probably already retired or left the company.

Saab has developed a few though.

ThePointblank wrote:

On this, I will remind you that Boeing has never successfully developed a brand new fighter or trainer design since the late 1930's... most of their current fighter jet experience is from when they bought McDonnell Douglas, and that experience is already close to two decades ago; the experience that was there has probably already retired or left the company.

Nice little history lesson that is irrelevant. That doesn't change the fact that your claim the KC-46 is less of a technical challenge than the T-X is wrong. I could point out that LM prior fighter experience before developing the F-117 was the F-104. Not sure that experience would have even counted since the F-117 was such a radical departure from previous programs. I too could say that a lot of the fighter experience had when they developed the F-22 came from their buyout of the F-16 program from GD.

If the Boeing/SAAB offer ends up being too close of a match in terms of all significant specifications to the T-50, then this is LockMart's to lose. Now, if Boeing's T-X is, say, significantly lighter or has some other unrevealed advantage over the T-50, things might be different.

ThePointblank wrote:

I don't see LM having the same issues with their T-50 compared to what happened with the F-35; for one, LM is proposing what is essentially an off-the-shelf design that's already in production with some tweaks. Their aircraft is already flying and is in production. All they have to worry about is getting the production rate to ramp up to where they need it to be. Considering that the current schedule calls for a FRP of 4 aircraft per month starting in FY25 and drawing down in FY30, that's easily achievable for them with their sub-contractors.
.

It's it production alright, in South Korea. The LM facility here in the states has produced what, two airframes? It's not like LM has stockpiled all the parts they need to begin FRP if they get the contract. So in that regard they are in the same boat as Boeing.

LMP737 wrote:

Nice little history lesson that is irrelevant. That doesn't change the fact that your claim the KC-46 is less of a technical challenge than the T-X is wrong. I could point out that LM prior fighter experience before developing the F-117 was the F-104. Not sure that experience would have even counted since the F-117 was such a radical departure from previous programs. I too could say that a lot of the fighter experience had when they developed the F-22 came from their buyout of the F-16 program from GD.

1. The KC-46 is developed based off an already existing design. The Boeing T-X aircraft is a complete, ALL new design; the base design has never existed or flown before.

2. LM had extensive experience developing high performance aircraft before the F-22; the F-104 and the F-117. Lockheed also developed aircraft like the SR-71 and the U-2. And besides, LM was the lead contractor for the F-22; GD in the early stages was part of the design team that was to build the F-22 until LM bought out GD's aircraft business.

LMP737 wrote:

It's it production alright, in South Korea. The LM facility here in the states has produced what, two airframes? It's not like LM has stockpiled all the parts they need to begin FRP if they get the contract. So in that regard they are in the same boat as Boeing.

Ah, but the subcontractors for LM are already producing the parts for production for the Korean-built aircraft.

And focusing on the final production location ignores the fact that aircraft production has increasingly become much more horizontally-integrated than it used to be. You look at the vast majority of the aircraft programs, and you will see that structures, hydraulics, fuel system components, wiring harnesses, actuators, circuit cards, etc will all be coming from outside suppliers and partners. So, for the subcontractors, it is just a matter of change in production rate and change in the delivery address for their components.

You look at the F-35 program as an example of this; F-35 assembly is located in multiple locations around the globe;
- Fort Worth, TX, USA;
- Cameri, Italy;
- Ankara, Turkey;
- Nagoya, Japan

And yet, the various subcontractors for the F-35 deliver components for every factory around the world. A USAF F-35A built in Fort Worth, TX may have a Japanese-built undercarriage, a Turkish centre fuselage, and a Italian right wing, with the balance of the aircraft being built in the US.

Also, look at the Boeing 787; the centre fuselage is Italian, the landing gear is French, the cabin lighting is German, the access doors are Swedish, the wing/body fairing and landing gear doors are Canadian, part of the forward fuselage and most of the wing is Japanese, and the aircraft is being assembled in two factories in either Seattle, WA, or Charleston, SC.

ThePointblank wrote:

1. The KC-46 is developed based off an already existing design. The Boeing T-X aircraft is a complete, ALL new design; the base design has never existed or flown before.
.

The KC-46 is a more complex aircraft that has despite outward appearances has little in common with the 767 on which it is based. The T-X is a relatively simple two seat, single engine aircraft. So once again your claim that the KC-46 is less technically challenging is wrong.

ThePointblank wrote:

LMP737 wrote:

And focusing on the final production location ignores the fact that aircraft production has increasingly become much more horizontally-integrated than it used to be. You look at the vast majority of the aircraft programs, and you will see that structures, hydraulics, fuel system components, wiring harnesses, actuators, circuit cards, etc will all be coming from outside suppliers and partners. So, for the subcontractors, it is just a matter of change in production rate and change in the delivery address for their components.

You look at the F-35 program as an example of this; F-35 assembly is located in multiple locations around the globe;
- Fort Worth, TX, USA;
- Cameri, Italy;
- Ankara, Turkey;
- Nagoya, Japan

And yet, the various subcontractors for the F-35 deliver components for every factory around the world. A USAF F-35A built in Fort Worth, TX may have a Japanese-built undercarriage, a Turkish centre fuselage, and a Italian right wing, with the balance of the aircraft being built in the US.
.

And you can say the same thing about Boeing's T-X entry. There are components that are already in production on that aircraft. And it's not like the USAF is is asking FRP a month after the award.

ThePointblank wrote:

2. LM had extensive experience developing high performance aircraft before the F-22; the F-104 and the F-117. Lockheed also developed aircraft like the SR-71 and the U-2. And besides, LM was the lead contractor for the F-22; GD in the early stages was part of the design team that was to build the F-22 until LM bought out GD's aircraft business.

.

We get it. Only Lockheed can build airplanes in a timely manner, only Lockheed's previous aircraft experience counts.

LMP737 wrote:

The KC-46 is a more complex aircraft that has despite outward appearances has little in common with the 767 on which it is based.

The KC-46 is based off a Boeing 767, but various sections of the aircraft were already developed and were in production. Boeing didn't have to design the KC-46's entire structure from scratch. They didn't have to develop a new fuel management system for an entirely new aircraft. They didn't have to re-test the structural load strength of the wings.

They are going to have to with their T-X offering.

LMP737 wrote:

The T-X is a relatively simple two seat, single engine aircraft. So once again your claim that the KC-46 is less technically challenging is wrong.

That's where you are wrong, extremely wrong. A advanced jet trainer is much more complex than you think, as they are essentially lower end jet fighters. For example, I'm aware that for the T-50, the flight control system, while derived from the F-16, is considerably more complex; the F-16 control law block diagram was 2 pages, while the T-50 was 17 pages long.

If you read the RFP, the RFP mentions that while a built-in aggressor capability is not required, the USAF wants to know if there are "limiting factors in your current design that would preclude future system modification" of wing pylons, radar systems, datalinks and defensive systems. Also, there is a requirement that the aircraft must have provisions for installation of a boom-type inflight refueling system as well.

Not to mention the sustained G requirements, and the maneuverability requirements as well; the minimum sustained G requirement of 6.5 g and objective of 7.5 g and the aircraft must sustain that load at a pressure altitude of 15,000ft for at least 140 degrees of a full turn with minimal loss of energy and altitude.

LMP737 wrote:

And you can say the same thing about Boeing's T-X entry. There are components that are already in production on that aircraft. And it's not like the USAF is is asking FRP a month after the award.

No, it isn't.

For example, is Alcoa setup to produce the aluminum fuselage ribs on the Boeing T-X entry at a rate suitable for mass production? Or does Alcoa need to tool up their factory and train workers on forging and stamping the ribs? Is Saab setup in their factory to produce the middle and aft sections at the production rates being requested? How much money and how fast can they get setup?

Also, consider cost. Boeing needs to recoup the costs for development and testing of their T-X aircraft, and it is well known that the T-X program will probably focus in as price being the top reason for selection. Boeing needs to convince the USAF that their offering is suitably mature enough and cheaper than the LM offering, and its hard for an all new design to do that against an already existing and in production aircraft. So unless LM comes in with an outrageous price that's well out of line, Boeing is at a disadvantage.

ThePointblank wrote:

LMP737 wrote:

That's where you are wrong, extremely wrong. A advanced jet trainer is much more complex than you think, as they are essentially lower end jet fighters. For example, I'm aware that for the T-50, the flight control system, while derived from the F-16, is considerably more complex; the F-16 control law block diagram was 2 pages, while the T-50 was 17 pages long.

I said before and I'll say it again. Compared to what Boeing designs and builds on a daily basis, relatively simple.

LMP737 wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

LMP737 wrote:

That's where you are wrong, extremely wrong. A advanced jet trainer is much more complex than you think, as they are essentially lower end jet fighters. For example, I'm aware that for the T-50, the flight control system, while derived from the F-16, is considerably more complex; the F-16 control law block diagram was 2 pages, while the T-50 was 17 pages long.

I said before and I'll say it again. Compared to what Boeing designs and builds on a daily basis, relatively simple.

Why wouldn't Boeing be capable of designing and producing this craft? They took over McDonell Douglas, a very capable company.

Dutchy wrote:

LMP737 wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

I said before and I'll say it again. Compared to what Boeing designs and builds on a daily basis, relatively simple.

Why wouldn't Boeing be capable of designing and producing this craft? They took over McDonell Douglas, a very capable company.

They took over McDonnell Douglas 20 years ago and havent done a successful cleansheet fighter design since then - just how much of McDDs talent that brought us the F-15 and F-18 do you really think is left after two decades? There is no inherent corporate memory to pull that talent from, basically everyone has moved on...

LMP737 wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

LMP737 wrote:

That's where you are wrong, extremely wrong. A advanced jet trainer is much more complex than you think, as they are essentially lower end jet fighters. For example, I'm aware that for the T-50, the flight control system, while derived from the F-16, is considerably more complex; the F-16 control law block diagram was 2 pages, while the T-50 was 17 pages long.

I said before and I'll say it again. Compared to what Boeing designs and builds on a daily basis, relatively simple.

I don't think you are getting it: From a project management standpoint, an all new project takes more resources, time, and management skill than a derivative. I speak as a project manager myself, and know this full well.

When you go fully clean sheet, you toss away any previous work on any similar projects in the past. Boeing has gone fully clean sheet with their T-X aircraft; while the simulations and calculations can provide some guidance as to how the aircraft should handle and how it will withstand the rigors of operation, it is not absolute.

In contrast, the KC-46 is a much simpler proposition. It is a derivative of an already existing aircraft design, with much of the testing and validation already done years ago.

Also, since when is a tanker being required to exceed Mach 1, pull 6.5 - 7.5g's in a turn, and be capable of future modifications for the carriage of weapons and additional sensors, while having benign handling characteristics for new pilots to learn how to fly?

Also, when has Boeing designed and built an all new fighter or trainer design? What guarantees can be provided that Boeing won't screw up again on an all new design verses their previous work on a derivative design?

Textron is out:

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/tex ... orpion-jet

It is very much starting to look like a two horse race. Note what Textron has stated about some of the requirements:

Harris explained Textron wanted to take a second look at the requirements to evaluate whether Scorpion could fit the service’s needs, but the jet had trouble meeting some of the Air Force’s more aggressive performance characteristics, including a high G threshold of 6.5 — the Scorpion can achieve 6 Gs.

“It basically was very close to what you would see in an F-16 Block 50 aircraft,” he said. “We went over it and over it, and it became clear that we weren’t going to meet these aggressive performance standards.”

However, Textron is working on getting Air Force airworthiness assessment for the Scorpion regardless of not having a first customer so it can better compete overseas.

They are still vying for the light attack program.

From the article: "That leaves five teams still in the ring to fight over the $16 billion contract: Boeing and Saab’s clean-sheet design, Lockheed Martin and Korea Aerospace Industries modified T-50, Leonardo DRS’s T-100, Sierra Nevada Corp and Turkish Aerospace Industries’ newly designed Freedom Trainer, and newcomer Stavatti Aerospace’s Javelin concept. "

Leonardo is in again, and do we know more about the Sierra Nevada Corp / Turkish Aerospace design? Literally reworked T-38? Or what?

I am surprised that the Javelin concept is been giving another round of fighting, are they up for the task?

Dutchy wrote:

From the article: "That leaves five teams still in the ring to fight over the $16 billion contract: Boeing and Saab’s clean-sheet design, Lockheed Martin and Korea Aerospace Industries modified T-50, Leonardo DRS’s T-100, Sierra Nevada Corp and Turkish Aerospace Industries’ newly designed Freedom Trainer, and newcomer Stavatti Aerospace’s Javelin concept. "

Leonardo is in again, and do we know more about the Sierra Nevada Corp / Turkish Aerospace design? Literally reworked T-38? Or what?

I am surprised that the Javelin concept is been giving another round of fighting, are they up for the task?

Realistically there are just two contestants here, Boeing and LM. I cannot see any of the other three making a viable US DoD submission

Leonardo are already expressing doubts about their chances in the T-X tender.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... -x-435418/

ThePointblank wrote:

I don't think you are getting it: From a project management standpoint, an all new project takes more resources, time, and management skill than a derivative.well. I speak as a project manager myself, and know this full
When you go fully clean sheet, you toss away any previous work on any similar projects in the past. Boeing has gone fully clean sheet with their T-X aircraft; while the simulations and calculations can provide some guidance as to how the aircraft should handle and how it will withstand the rigors of operation, it is not absolute.

In contrast, the KC-46 is a much simpler proposition. It is a derivative of an already existing aircraft design, with much of the testing and validation already done years ago.

Also, since when is a tanker being required to exceed Mach 1, pull 6.5 - 7.5g's in a turn, and be capable of future modifications for the carriage of weapons and additional sensors, while having benign handling characteristics for new pilots to learn how to fly?

Also, when has Boeing designed and built an all new fighter or trainer design? What guarantees can be provided that Boeing won't screw up again on an all new design verses their previous work on a derivative design?

So far the only legitimate point you have made so far is that the LM entry is already in service and is a know quantity. Your argument pertaining to the KC-46 is irrelevant. Boeing operations in Everett and St. Louis are completely separate from one another and one facility having an issue does not mean the other will have the same.

ThePointblank wrote:

I speak as a project manager myself, and know this full well

Project manager in what?

The second Boeing T-X has flown: http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2017-04-24- ... kes-Flight

SAAB hints that T-X competitors could increase.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ts-436593/



http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/geta ... emid=70327

St. Louis Biz Journal Article on the Boeing trainer. Includes video from first joint flight.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... g-t-x.html

More details as to why Northrop Grumman pulled out of the T-X competition have emerged:
http://www.combataircraft.net/2017/09/2 ... d-t-x-jet/

From what the article is saying, the reason why Northrop Grumman pulled out is due to excessively high risk. Also, the article hints at rumours floating about that during flight testing, Northrop discovered there were issues with the handling qualities of their prototype that required significant redesign work.

most probably the last things because why would you go to the trouble (and expense) of building a prototype and not enter? Excessive risk doesn't cut it with me, sounds like an excuse.

Dutchy wrote:

most probably the last things because why would you go to the trouble (and expense) of building a prototype and not enter? Excessive risk doesn't cut it with me, sounds like an excuse.

If anything, this just shows just how high the stakes are for Boeing to get their T-X aircraft right the first time. Their aircraft better perform to expectations, otherwise they will have to conduct a major redesign, which would suck up more resources and cash, along with increasing the risks. I bet the USAF is watching Boeing fairly closely on their T-X proposal because of the attending risks with the Boeing offering.