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.

 

Latest T-X plan-Or what could possibly go wrong

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   
The Air Force's latest plan for the T-X program is a great example of a "what could possibly go wrong" plan. Any offering that exceeds the standards put forth in the RFP will see a cost incentive added to their bid, lowering the total cost of their aircraft.

For every 0.1G over 6.5 $13.2M comes off. For every 0.1 over 7, up to 7.5 or $88M, $4.4M comes off.

For every 0.5° above the 20° AoA requirement, up to 23°, $6.4M comes off. For 23-25° it's $3.2, up to $51M.

The turn around requirement is 45 minutes after landing. For every minute under 45, $4.3M comes off.

What could possibly go wrong with this idea?

www.flightglobal.com...




posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
The Air Force's latest plan for the T-X program is a great example of a "what could possibly go wrong" plan. Any offering that exceeds the standards put forth in the RFP will see a cost incentive added to their bid, lowering the total cost of their aircraft.

For every 0.1G over 6.5 $13.2M comes off. For every 0.1 over 7, up to 7.5 or $88M, $4.4M comes off.

For every 0.5° above the 20° AoA requirement, up to 23°, $6.4M comes off. For 23-25° it's $3.2, up to $51M.

The turn around requirement is 45 minutes after landing. For every minute under 45, $4.3M comes off.

What could possibly go wrong with this idea?

www.flightglobal.com...


Hmmm. I hope they don't cut corners on the ejection seats.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

They did the same thing with missile tech in the 2000s. I got to go before a congressional commitee and testify about the crap ATACMS and how the perk cost bidding caused accidents.

Will they ever learn?



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Whoever they use for the detailed cost analysis better have it all buttoned up. The article mentions less risk of a protest, but with that much analysis of the performance parameters and price proposals... I see so much room for ambiguity or miscalculation...

Maybe I'm just bias as a CO because cost plus incentive contracts are the devil



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Idiocracy is coming to America. You know what is wrong with Americans? They don't know the basics. Without the basics how can you build proper aircrafts? This is what happened to the Nazi's when Scientist started to takeover the military.
edit on 27-7-2016 by makemap because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfThor

I'd be disappointed if they didn't do SOMETHING to screw it up.



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: makemap

They know exactly what the right aircraft they need is. The procurement process has been screwed up for decades.



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 08:54 AM
link   

“Based on the multiple reviews with industry, the air force now has a much better appreciation of the potential value of performance above threshold capability,”


wut

So is Northrop Grumman involved in T-X in any way?
edit on 28/7/16 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz

They're developing a clean sheet design through Scaled Composites.

Lockheed/KAI - T-50A
Boeing/SAAB - Clean sheet
Northrop - Clean sheet
Raytheon/Alenia Aermacchi - T-100
edit on 7/28/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 09:06 AM
link   


Contractors would receive a $13.2 million decrement to its price for every 0.1G above the threshold of 6.5Gs, and $4.4 million for every 0.1G above 7.0G. The service set a 7.5G ceiling with a maximum $88 million price reduction, according to the draft RFP.

(snip)

“Based on the multiple reviews with industry, the air force now has a much better appreciation of the potential value of performance above threshold capability,” Air Force spokesman Maj Rob Leese says

(snip)

While the reductions provide an attractive incentive for bidders, the call for advanced capabilities could work against contractors offering an off-the-shelf option, according to Lexington Institute chief operating officer Loren Thompson. With the final RFP due in December, industry could still suggest changes to the Air Force’s latest cost incentives, he said.

(Same article)

(Lexington Institute receives funding from industry probably including those involved in this bid)

From Wikipedia:


Instead, Northrop had secretly begun a new clean-sheet design to closely match the evolving T-X requirements. Scaled Composites, a wholly owned subsidiary of Northrop Grumman, will construct the prototype, with a first flight expected near the end of 2015. Northrop has not indicated how many engines the aircraft will have, nor have they publicly announced the name of the project.

en.wikipedia.org...

For balance, 3/5 entrants are offering clean-sheet designs, Boeing-Saab, Texton Air-Land, and Northrop Grumman.

The Value of Performance - motto of Northrop Grumman



Let's keep going:


Still, the price reductions might not only spur innovation, but the quantified incentives could quell some of the contract protests that have besieged the US Defense Department in recent years, according to Dan Goure, an analyst at the Lexington Institute.

(first article)


Last time a dispute occured that I can remember was with Northrop Grumman winning the B-21 - Lockheed and Boeing disputed. Did certain parties offer capabilities beyond the requirements for B-21? And the time before that which I can remember was with KC-X, didn't Northrop Grumman / EADS offer the A330 and originally win because they exceeded the requirements and then Boeing disputed and won?

Anyway, I think Northrop Grumman is somehow involved in this change. See I'm good at conspiracy theories too!

Also I think Boeing-Saab, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin are going to be the font-runners, but that doesn't exactly narrow it down.
edit on 28/7/16 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 28/7/16 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 28/7/16 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   
cost incentives should be off set by more severe penalties to try and prevent selling essentially a test bed.

But increased G performance and turn around time is hardly pushing the boundaries of innovation and muddies the water, just put in the spec what you want, it's only a trainer.


RAB

posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 02:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

I highly doubt this is "just" a trainer, this will be a export bird for the other F35 buyers.

The F16 is getting long in the tooth, and at some point the US will need to rearm the "air national guard"

My money thinks Northrop will get this I see a F16 or F5 type body with side low profile intakes and hight mounted diamond F35 wings.With some of the F35 toys.

Lockmart will be for to busy, (althought bidding) i highly doubt anything from oversea will get this as if for now the list is 350 this will increase.

Just my ideas

RAB



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

This almost sounds like something out of the Kelly Johnson playbook.

Is this not a fixed price contract like some of the latest DoD acquisitions?

Bold move, cotton. We'll see how it plays out for them.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Even though I don't believe it will win, Northrop's bid, IF it somehow wins, may make way for a low cost, f-5 analogue of 21st century, cheap fighter for poor countries inclined to buy from West, rather than russian/chinese. Northrop doesn't have f16 to cannibalize its sales with a trainer come light fighter, like LM does with their plane, which would probably prevent such a variant from LM or KAI to be readily marketed wherever and to whomever.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
What could possibly go wrong with this idea?

www.flightglobal.com...


Go wrong? An expensive, capable, aircraft which can't be procured in sufficient numbers in time.

Go right? Pilots & aviators get experience in high performance craft and need fewer training hours on the expensive combat aircraft. What's the cost saving on improving the longevity of the 22 and 35 fleet?

And as mentioned, some contractor will get an export fighter for those not cleared to take on the F-35, and some generals will have a nice post-retirement gig.




edit on 1-8-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-8-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-8-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

The last time they went this route was with a missile development program in the early 80s and it was a total disaster.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Things are always more complicated with large projects but a general rule of thumb is the more complex / mathematical the evaluation criteria and process, the more likely a protest is to ensue.

There's a reason why contracting officers prefer firm fixed price contracts.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: Zaphod58

Things are always more complicated with large projects but a general rule of thumb is the more complex / mathematical the evaluation criteria and process, the more likely a protest is to ensue.

There's a reason why contracting officers prefer firm fixed price contracts.


Not to mention a well written specification!



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: SonOfThor

I have far more faith in their ability to completely screw up procuring a pair of shoes than you do.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

Don't even get me started on that one... there's a reason it is only early August and I am still in the office, working Saturday, and averaging 12 hour days (and a baby due any day now), but I digress.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join