It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

T-X RFP Delayed to December 2016, FOC delayed 2 years

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   
The USAF is delaying the release of the RFP for the T-X for 3 months. Its now slated for by Dec 2016.

The reason cited is the need for refining the requirements further.

However, the FOC move from 2032 to 2034 is very disappointing. Its for financial reasons, but even so. The T-38 needs to be gone by now.

www.defensenews.com...




posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Time to buy stock in Textron...



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

Textron isn't in this one.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 01:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: anzha
The reason cited is the need for refining the requirements further.



Oh dear Lord. They've already had a rotating list of requirements. Now they have actual bids. People have built hardware based on these requirements. Are they going to change the scoring/weighting?

Contractors are now asking if the Navy is running this program... ( See? I make funny joke with you)


Textron could be back in it if they downgrade the requirements to reduce costs. I'm not sure that they're going to reduce them that far, though.
edit on 22-3-2016 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Given how haphazardly thrown together everyone else's offerings have been at this point (other than Northrop's mystery T-38 2.0 that they STILL haven't felt like showing us), I would imagine that having someone at the Textron art department throw a swept wing onto one of the scorpion's CAD models would still probably count as a valid proposal in this mess of a procurement job.

Me, I have my fingers crossed that hell freezes over and Mitsubishi decides to take advantage of the devalued yen and lowball an X-2 derivative to help offset those lackluster MRJ sales...



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

Even with a swept wing they'd be hard pressed to meet the sustained G requirement. Most trainers seem to.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

Sadly, as much as I love the idea of the X-2 being turned into the new trainer for the USAF, it has a very, very small likelihood of happening.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Well, at least it'd meet that G requirement...

Oh well, is there any ETA on when Northrop is finally going to pull up its skirt and show us their trainer design? Weren't we supposed to get to see it in January?



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

Probably once it gets closer to the RFP dropping.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

My fingers are crossed for a two-seater F-20 with updated avionics. That big single engine design would be a great primer for the F-35.

The "T-X Tigershark II" has a certain ring to it...
edit on 23-3-2016 by Barnalby because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

It came through Honolulu, with an N-number on it, heading to Asia for a sales tour. They let them use a tanker going that way and let it in to Hickam, but said absolutely not to the Tigershark going over there.

So we hopped in a truck, grabbed the HF, called Honolulu Ground and went to look at it.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The Tigershark?

Or the T-X entry?

Either way, I have a major soft spot for the T-38 family. That Northrop exec was spot-on comparing it to the Porsche 911, it's that elegantly elemental of an aircraft design.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

Tigershark. They were trying to sell it to an Asian nation to try to get some kind of sales.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That aircraft was such a tantalizing "what if?". It reminds me of the Dassault Mirages, it was that beautifully simple of a design.

Unfortunately, the success of the Mirage family overseas was probably what killed the Tigershark, as all the western-leaning nations who would have been interested in it bought (or were forced to buy) Mirages over even the F-5, and the nations who were on the "OK to buy American" list all had the cash for F-15s and F-16s.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

It was a pretty airplane. The pictures didn't do it justice.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Part of me thinks seeing the F-20 (along with the M-12) would be even cooler than seeing Endeavour in person (and trying to pick out the differences between it and Discovery)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

It's not the requirements, but it's the wording of the RFP that they're trying to refine.


Efforts to refine the RFP language of the T-X program, which have included extensive dialogue with industry, “have taken longer than initially anticipated to complete,” the service stated in its latest notice. The process has caused it to postpone the full operational capability date of the new trainer from Fiscal Year 2032 to FY2034; however, the planned initial operational capability date of FY2024 remains unchanged.

www.ainonline.com...



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Why does it take a decade to bring a trainer from IOC to FOC? What capabilities are planned in the first place?




top topics



 
1

log in

join