Textron had to sweep the wing to reach the 0.9 mach requirement. Without any order for the straight wing version, I guess it appeared too hazardous to finance yet some major R&D work when giants like Boeing and NG where on the same line (new design).

Remark:
All this late discussion belongs to the T-X thread.

Ohh, thanks, Tomcat: a post both on topic and under the 10 lines.
Motion approved. Let’s move all of it to the right tread.

About what you write instead:Scorpion was thought as a CAS/COIN/FAC plane from the start and a good damn one IMHO , trying to put a sweep wing on it just to compete in the T-x was however a folly.
It’s useful to remember that also the Hawk i.e. the most widely used of the former generation of trainers was retired also, so let’s imagine the chance it would have.
The goal of actual trainers being mainly to replicate the flight pattern of (true) 4,5 and 5 gen fighter, they both stood no chance at all from the start.

At the contrary, the very same flying pattern can allow them to fulfill the CAS role much better than the previous gen fighters as the high AoA translate usually into a low stall speed and this would surely apply also to the M-346/YAK-130 and to the future clean sheet proposal for the T-X (K-50/T-50 more doubtful IMHO).

Wow, Bring on it, you really love writing , it seems.
The first one that you have to ask about why we have such suspect about the competition fairness is General Dynamics I think: how it come that they walked away from our partnership, after that the initial requirement went out?
Just one years ago someone could even think that the M-346/T-100 wwas straight out of the competition, like it was the Hawk proposed by Northrop team.
http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show-2015/t-x-trainer-grows-fighter-territory
And you are right , we were perfectly fine, after that the question about the g-numbers were clarified and Raytheon drop the Scorpion and joined the T-100 team.
That last until this **** went out.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/air-force-dangles-price-incentives-for-advanced-t-x-427927/
It’s just from two week ago and so let’s pardon our side of Atlantic for being still hypersensitive about the matter.
As I have told earlier we have had two very umpleasant experience with US bidding and we still sense the same feeling there
Ok, now I see that there is something also for a AoA increment, just sorry they are starting by a ridicolously low starting point and it would stop giving it at 25°.
So, sorry for all your efforts but my impressions are if possible even stronger than before: they are giving out a lot of price discount for just a very limited increase of performances, with not any real operative meaning.
Only thing it save it is that they gave a proportionally larger incentive to the first steps, so ok, back to square one and let’s try to get almost them…

Again, go into the merits of the solicitation that has been released already and demonstrate (technically) how that amounts to ‘favoring’ some of the contenders over and above something that would happen anytime one party (or parties) decide to pursue a clean sheet aimed at a specific target customer vs another trying to take something that exists elsewhere and mold it for such a requirement. You frame requirements, developed by your experts once you determine the value of the system, its quantity acquired and the amount budgeted is significant enough to not exercise a sole source option which in this case is more than justified given the sheer amount of numbers required to satisfy the USAF training requirement. They have had extensive communications with potential participants and will continue to use the information gathered to inform the final RFP due in December.

Like I pointed out, everyone besides Textron claim that they can meet the performance requirements specified in the solicitation and other opportunities the USAF has had to discuss the requirements with potential candidates (this will eventually lead to a final RFP around Dec.). If all can meet, you will naturally get into a scenario where multiple designs on offer will have their strengths and weaknesses within the Threshold-Objective cost/performance model. This isn’t deliberately skewing the requirements to favor certain competitors unless one can prove that the existing designs CANNOT compete without resorting to extensive modifications thereby making them significantly more risky proposition compared to OTS solutions of the same designs or that the requirements are framed in such a way that the resources required to get the mature designs competitive end up negating any cost advantage that may exist with them. Like I said, if this is the case you should be able to prove it.

We’ll that is just speculation without even a shred of evidence to back it up. All competitors will be spending their own cash to develop their bids, Boeing and Northrop will just be spending a lot more given their designs will be fresh. We don’t know how much money Raytheon and Leonardo are committing for their submission but whathever it is, they and lockheed will also offer extremely low risk on account of high maturity…and if they are within the threshold and objective requirement for performance then this will be to their advantage and something Boeing and Northrop would have to negate by either offering an extremely competitive design (performance and life cycle cost) or by spending a lot over the next 12 months to demonstrate that sufficient design de-risking has been done.

They have cast a wide net, with all but Textron likely to be meet at least the threshold requirements (thats what its looking more and more likely as we inch toward final RFP release and going by teaming arrangements). Within that net, they will obviously look to optimize the trade space that gives them their desired level of capability at a cost they can afford. All that will go into the RFP and we will have at least 4 highly competitive designs covering varying degrees of risk, performance etc. And remember, this is only one aspect of the program (frames). There is a training element that they have stressed as well, enough to release a detailed document for it.

This is a rather absurd claim that completely disregards the acquisition process that starts first and foremost with a technical set of requirements and then engaging the industry and the broader DOD community to see how the trade space can be created to offer best value (in terms of cost and performance) vs a desired set of requirements specified by the subject matter experts in both training and acquisition. That future programs would use the BBP 1-3 directives should have been known by all competitors as it is an initiative started by the current SecDef and pursued vigorously by his AT&L replacement. As I had mentioned earlier, the Objective and Threshold method to specify requirements has been used on virtually every program of size for years. What the BBP has sought to reverse is the trend of contractors looking to design the lowest cost technically acceptable solution that quite often (if not almost always) pushes them towards the threshold performance requirements. It gives the service the authority to pay a little extra to get a performance that is better than the threshold and closer to its objective or desired performance. Some programs will obviously pay have little appetite for that gain in performance whereas for others you may be willing to pay a decent amount to get better performance. BBP asks them to specify the %age amount within the RFP and this will be done in the document released to the industry later.

And it works both ways. If a Boeing, A Lockheed etc chase a high performing design they will almost certainly have to risk also chasing a higher cost thereby giving the cost advantage to other competitors. Its not like they get a free pass on cost given that its a virtual certainty that cost will be a KPP for the T-X and going by the significantly HIGHER risk LRS-B program, it would be fairly safe to assume that at least the production phase of the T-X would be utilize fixed price procurement. Its also quite likely that the EMD contract would be fixed price as well and both of these favor the OEM’s that show up with mature designs that allow them to bid competitively without risking a heck of a lot.

Nothing that has to be ‘derived’ from the T-X. There are currently no requirements for such a derivative, or even money budgeted to pursue one. It is in all respect a phantom requirement that may or may not come to life, and the chances of this particular path being pursued (T-X offshoot for a CAS platform) are rather slim. They’d be much better off sticking to the training aspect of the requirements and picking a best value all things considered. No one should really take the A-X talk very seriously..at least not until there is a path to fund it, even if its based on the T-X. No such path is clear. They are in open communication with industry and the process that will eventually lead to an RFP in Dec-16 would have been onogoing for well over a year. This gives plenty of time for industry to set itself up, plan ahead, communicate their grievances with the USAF through the communication lines and to Congress through PR (and lobbyists) if they sense a deliberate attempt to set the requirements up to favor one of their competitors. Moreover, even after the competition there is recourse which will most certainly be exercised once a decision is made next year through the GAO protest (as has happened in the last few major acquisition programs).

Bring on it, to put a long story short and stop to bother others with the flow of the unusual lenghtly post we are actually producing, I would just reiterate the essential part of what I have written in my previous post i.e. that I really pray that it will just be in the way you said, as I ‘m convinced that in a fair tender there would be no match.
Still despite all your possible objections my doubts remain and , if possible, the performance request you have cited does nothing to relieve it.
An example: are they saying something about Max AoA or low speed handling or they concentrate just about the turn performances? Maybe it is just that you have not highlighted them but if they have not almost the same if not even more importance than the G numbers, i ‘m sorry but all the program is not just arranged but also absolutely senseless.
Actual trainers has been introduced to replicate, almost partially, those kind of flight performances typical of (true) 4,5 and 5 generation fighters than even the most widely modernized versions of previous ones, with their still conventional frames have been found impossible to.
Now, if the preferred performance requirement are just the ones you highlighted and the quick read i’ve made of 16th July document seems me to point precisely in that direction, well : Houston, we or better US air force cadets have a problem.