Northrop withdraws from T-X

Northrop has officially withdrawn from the T-X program.

“Northrop Grumman and its principal teammate BAE Systems have carefully examined the U.S. Air Force’s T-X Trainer requirements and acquisition strategy as stated in the final request for proposals issued on Dec. 30, 2016,” a Northrop statement said. “The companies have decided not to submit a proposal for the T-X Trainer program, as it would not be in the best interest of the companies and their shareholders.”

This marks the second of five companies to withdraw within the last week. Raytheon and Leonardo withdrew when they couldn't reach a pricing agreement on their offering.

Our own Sammamishman raised questions with me about how serious Northrop was a couple weeks ago when he noticed that there didn't appear to be an IFR receptacle, or anywhere to put one.

www.defensenews.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

The lack of the IFR port and no afterburner like the Boeing and LM entries have meant they would have to redesign and or heavily modify their prototype to meet the RFP requirements.
I think Northrop's plate is too full right now with initial company funds and brain power going into B-21 development along with what ever other projects are out there, possible the RQ-180 as well.

a reply to: Sammamishman

Was British Aerospace teamed with NorthGrum?

I'm seeing reports they are out too and LM/KAI & Boeing/Saab are all that are left.

a reply to: anzha

BAE Systems was going to provide some of the systems and ground support post production.

Sierra Nevada/TAI are still officially out there.

That's interesting. Maybe because of Northrup winning the LRSB they are rexamaning these important but lesser contracts due to costs, etc and for a company as their stature. To not put on IFR or no afterburner on fifth generation trainer. To me seems half hearted

a reply to: Sammamishman

Well, I don't think it's a plate too full dilemma. I do think that the major issue at this point is cost. Saab has been doing warbirds better for less for a long time and Boeing is one of two true commercial mass producers left in aviation and Lockheed has a fully functioning and very affordable modern version of the f-5/t-38 in the tfa-50. All the mutterings are right now pointing to a very competitive price point for the capabilities offered.

a reply to: blackbird9393

I'm betting they're eyeing an F-5 type platform for export, or even the Air Force OA-X if it goes forward.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yea that could work as a cheaper solution to higher class fifth generation. They use the TX programme for the funds to design and build a test aircraft. Build the capabilities and experience in what they will need to make it an export fighter/attack aircraft.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: anzha

BAE Systems was going to provide some of the systems and ground support post production.

They've done some pretty cool stuff with the Hawk T2 that allows it to mimic other aircraft that they'd have included here. They've also got the ability to project realistic threats as though they were picked up by the mimic'd aircrafts defensive systems too.

While the Hawk doesn't handle like a Eurofighter or F18 it can be made to give the same HUD symboligy and by all accounts does a great job as a lead in trainer. Adding that sort of functionality to a high performance aircraft would be great for all.

Who thinks this is real? Stavatti apparently it's an upgunned and uprated javelin. However everything else this company has ever done is exactly nothing.

a reply to: bra1nwash

Javelin has been around on paper for years. I don't think it has much of a shot, but more entrants means more pressure on Boeing and Lockheed.

I dont understand why BAE would bail - Hawk has been a back bone for years and the training packages that come with it give them long term maintenance contracts too, now the only indigenous product they have is an aged non supersonic small jet. I know its cockpit upgrades as mentioned above still make it a good lead in fighter, I havnt bothered to look up Hawk cost vs new US supersonic trainer cost.

If Northrop has enough on its plate its fine but did BAE back the wrong partner? The Boeing and Goshawk partnership seemed to work fine, wonder why BAE/Northrop ended up partnering??

a reply to: Forensick

They weren't offering Hawk, they were offering their clean sheet design.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Forensick

They weren't offering Hawk, they were offering their clean sheet design.

Yeah sorry I didnt mean that the way it sounded, Hawk doesnt meet the spec. I meant with Hawk ageing so much BAE portfolio would have looked better with a new jet trainer, the one they were going to build with Northrop.

With Northrop pulling out, BAE now only has the Hawk in its portfolio. Not much an issue in itself as it is still a capable, low cost, low maintenance and maneuverable single engine bird, but if BAE had a strategic interest in the T-X to replace its aging Hawk, they backed the wrong partner.

Pure speculation, just seems if say SAAB and its partner get the gig or an Italian and a US partner, BAE would have been better with a cleansheet with Boeing or someone else, if Northrop decided unilaterally to drop the bid against BAEs wish, I was wondering if there were other sweetners between the two?