Back to news

August 29, 2018 | International, Aerospace

When you should expect the Air Force to announce its next trainer aircraft

By:

WASHINGTON – With the U.S. Air Force having received final bids from industry, the service is now poised to award a contract for its 350-plane next-generation trainer fleet in just a few weeks.

An Air Force official, speaking on background, said the service expects to award the contract by the end of the fiscal year — in other words, before Sept. 30. Many have speculated that the days before the Air Force Association's annual conference, being held Sept. 17-19 outside of Washington, would be a potential time for an announcement to come.

However, a source with knowledge of the situation said the current plan is to make the announcement after AFA concludes, likely the week of Sept. 24. If true, it could create an awkward environment at the event, where senior leaders will have to duck commenting on the soon-to-come T-X winner.

Three industry teams have submitted bids for the T-X competition, with an estimated price tag of $16 billion over the life of the program. Boeing and Swedish aerospace firm Saab have developed a new, clean-sheet design; Lockheed Martin and Korea Aerospace Industries are offering the T-50A, a take on KAI's T-50 jet trainer; and Leonardo DRS is offering the T-100, a modified version of the Italian aerospace company's M-346.

The contract represents more than just 350 jets, although that alone would make it one of the biggest U.S. Air Force programs in years. Whichever contractor captures the USAF market may have the inside track on a number of future trainer competitions around the globe, particularly among countries looking to buy the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. In addition, if the U.S. Air Force decides to purchase aggressor aircraft for live-flying training, something that has been discussed on and off in recent years, simply buying more T-X trainers would be a logical solution.

The contact has been a long time coming, and the contest has been filled with twists and turns.

The service has for years sought to replace its aged T-38 jet, which ended production in the early 1970s and has served as the primary training plane for fighter pilots for decades. However, other priorities and sequestration-related budget caps saw the T-X campaign pushed to the right; while companies began announcing their entries for the competition as early as 2010, it wasn't until 2015 that the service revealed its actual criteria.

At this point last year, the Air Force was still pledging to announce a winner by the end of calendar 2017. That projected award was pushed to March, and then to the end of the fiscal year.

The expected winners have shifted over time as well. Around 2013, the conventional wisdom was that either Leonardo or the BAE Hawk, teamed with Northrop Grumman, would be the winner, as the service was looking for an off-the-shelf solution that has already been proven in service elsewhere. Boeing's idea of a clean-sheet design was seen as a longshot, due to the associated costs and timeline.

However, that view shifted to the point that in 2015, Northrop and BAE scrapped plans to offer the Hawk and instead developed a new clean-sheet design of their own; the companies ultimately dropped out of the competition entirely in February of 2017. Meanwhile, the T-100 team struggled, with original partner General Dynamics dropping off the project in March 2015. GD was replaced by Raytheon in February 2016, but quit less than a year later.

Other competitors, including Textron AirLand's Scorpion jet and a team-up between Turkish Aerospace Industries and Sierra Nevada, have come and gone, leaving only the three remaining competitors. Of those, industry analysts largely agree the winner will be either the Lockheed/KAI team or the Boeing offering.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/08/28/when-you-should-expect-the-air-force-to-announce-its-next-trainer-aircraft

On the same subject

  • Leonardo DRS to provide Joint Tactical Terminal-Integrated Broadcast Service Systems to U.S. Army

    October 15, 2019 | International, C4ISR

    Leonardo DRS to provide Joint Tactical Terminal-Integrated Broadcast Service Systems to U.S. Army

    ARLINGTON, VA, October 14, 2019 ̶ Leonardo DRS announced today it has been awarded a $14.7 million dollar contract to provide next-generation, near real-time battlespace awareness capabilities for the U.S. Army's Counter Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar (C-RAM) program directorate at Redstone Arsenal, AL. The company's Joint Tactical Terminal - Integrated Broadcast Service (JTT-IBS) radio system is used by the U.S. military and select allied military forces to receive and transmit near real-time multi-source threat, survivor and Blue Force Tracker data among airborne, land-based and ship-board tactical systems. It enables world-wide beyond line of sight situational awareness by connecting tactical users and intelligence nodes over UHF SATCOM. Under the contract with the Defense Logistics Agency, the Leonardo DRS Airborne and Intelligence Systems business will provide 81 JTT-IBS tactical terminal sets to complete fielding of C-RAM's situational awareness and command and control cells. The JTT-IBS provides a key capability in C-RAM's mission to provide in-theater force protection against the indirect fire and Unmanned Aerial Systems threats. “We are proud to be a trusted provider of JTT systems to the U.S. Army's Missile and Space Defense units over the past 15 years and ensuring warfighters have the best situational awareness available to them,” said Larry Ezell, vice president and general manager of the Leonardo DRS Airborne and Intelligence Systems business unit. “As the operational need of JTT systems increase, we look forward to continue working with existing and new customers to provide this long trusted critical situational awareness equipment and support to the war fighter.” Leonardo DRS recently completed design and certification efforts on the third-generation JTT-IBS adding to its family of systems currently operational in Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Special Operations applications. The latest JTT-IBS is positioned for long-term operations as the Army continues to modernize. Leonardo DRS's JTT systems are the only certified IBS transmit capability in production today. Leonardo DRS provides a family of Joint Tactical Systems supporting Integrated Broadcast Service (IBS) receive-only and IBS transmit users across multiple airborne, land and sea platforms. These systems are well positioned as the leading solution for the pending Joint Tactical Terminal – Next Generation (JTT-NG) acquisition program. To see more of the Leonardo DRS Tactical Terminal technology, visit: https://www.leonardodrs.com/TacticalTerminals About Leonardo DRS Leonardo DRS is a prime contractor, leading technology innovator and supplier of integrated products, services and support to military forces, intelligence agencies and defense contractors worldwide. Its Airborne and Intelligence Systems business unit is a global leader and strategic partner committed to delivering world-class, full life-cycle defense and intelligence products that protect the security of our nation and our allies. From air combat training to state-of-the-art electronic warfare systems, our technology is deployed by virtually all U.S. military and government agencies around the world. Headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, Leonardo DRS is a wholly owned subsidiary of Leonardo S.p.A. See the full range of capabilities at www.LeonardoDRS.com and on Twitter @LeonardoDRSnews. For additional information please contact: Michael Mount Senior Director, Public Affairs 571-447-4624 mmount@drs.com View source version on Leonardo DRS: https://www.leonardodrs.com/news/press-releases/leonardo-drs-to-provide-joint-tactical-terminal-integrated-broadcast-service-systems-to-us-army/

  • Opinion: How The 2020 Election Is Likely To Affect Defense

    November 22, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

    Opinion: How The 2020 Election Is Likely To Affect Defense

    By Byron Callan Unlike in the U.S. health care or energy sectors, it is so far hard to discern much of a stock market reaction for the defense sector in the run-up to the 2020 U.S. election. There has not been the equivalent of issues such as Medicare for all or fracking that has grabbed the attention of defense investors. That might be because defense and security issues have been absent from the debates so far, and Democratic candidates have put forth few detailed defense and foreign policy plans and proposals. It is way too soon to act with conviction on the potential outcomes of the 2020 election and their implications for defense. Polls can and will change. The likely Democratic presidential candidate may not be known until April, when most of the primaries are completed, or July 2020, when the party holds its convention. And it remains to be seen how that candidate will fare against President Donald Trump, presuming he is not removed from office. Still, leaders at defense companies and analysts have to assess potential outcomes and what they may entail for 2021 and beyond. The current consensus is that there likely will be split-party control of Congress and the White House in 2021-22. The House probably will remain in Democratic control, but the Republicans may retain a slim majority in the Senate, given the number of “safe” seats they will defend. Democrats might sweep in, but they are very unlikely to gain a 60-seat majority, and it is arguable that if they do not, the chamber will vote to do away with cloture, which gives the minority party in the Senate power to shape and channel legislation. This alone should temper expectations that there will be radical changes for defense. Moreover, the day after the 2020 election, both parties will have their eyes on the 2022 election, when 12 Democratic and 22 Republican seats will be contested. If Trump is reelected, the simplest path forward will be to conclude that current defense policies will remain in place. Congress has not been willing to approve the deep nondefense discretionary cuts the administration has proposed for 2017-19, and it is not clear what would change this posture in 2021-22. Barring a major change in the global security outlook, U.S. defense spending may thus remain hemmed in by debt/deficit concerns and demands for parity in increases of nondefense spending. Trump is likely to continue to browbeat allies in Europe and Asia to spend more on defense. The Pentagon will push ahead with its current major modernization and technology priorities, including artificial intelligence, directed energy and hypersonics, and there should be some continuity with civilian leadership at the Pentagon. However, the global security outlook may be the biggest variable for the sector to assess. Iran has not shown any readiness to bow to U.S. “maximum pressure,” and North Korea has not denuclearized. How Russia and China respond to the prospects of another four years of Trump also has to be weighed. NATO and other alliances also may be under more stress. And inevitably, there are likely to be new security issues in the early 2020s that are not top of mind or even conceivable today. There are a range of defense views and perspectives among the leading Democratic candidates. The views of the two most progressive candidates—Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)—could be viewed as potentially the most disruptive for defense. Warren, in particular, has emphasized her view of “agency capture” by major U.S. contractors, and her health care plan is to be paid for in part by a $798 billion cut to defense spending over 10 years, though the baseline of those cuts has not been stipulated. If a progressive candidate appears to do well in the Democratic nomination process and in polling against Trump, however, it will be useful to recall the congressional dynamic noted above. Congress could act as a firewall against steeper cuts and sweeping change. Equally, it is useful to recall that what candidates promise is not always what they do once they are in office. A more moderate, centrist Democratic candidate such as former Vice President Joe Biden or South Bend, Illinois, Mayor Pete Buttigieg may appear benign for defense and will very likely face the same geopolitical security challenges that Trump could face. If there is a shift back toward a U.S. promotion of democracy and human rights, that could affect recent international defense export patterns and raise tensions with China, Russia and other autocratic regimes. Probably, there will be a bigger debate over nuclear strategic forces modernization, the role of technology in defense and whether it can deliver credible military capability and deterrence at lower cost. Even if U.S. defense spending evidences little real growth in the early 2020s, these factors could be the most important for contractors to navigate. https://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-how-2020-election-likely-affect-defense

  • A New Layer of Medical Preparedness to Combat Emerging Infectious Disease

    February 25, 2019 | International, Other Defence

    A New Layer of Medical Preparedness to Combat Emerging Infectious Disease

    DARPA has selected five teams of researchers to support PREventing EMerging Pathogenic Threats (PREEMPT), a 3.5-year program first announced in January 2018 to reinforce traditional medical preparedness by containing viral infectious diseases in animal reservoirs and insect vectors before they can threaten humans. Through studies in secure laboratories and simulated natural environments, the PREEMPT researchers will model how viruses might evolve within animal populations, and assess the safety and efficacy of potential interventions. Autonomous Therapeutics, Inc., Institut Pasteur, Montana State University, The Pirbright Institute, and the University of California, Davis, lead the PREEMPT teams. “DARPA challenges the PREEMPT research community to look far left on the emerging threat timeline and identify opportunities to contain viruses before they ever endanger humans,” said Dr. Brad Ringeisen, the DARPA program manager for PREEMPT. “One of the chief limitations of how infectious disease modeling is currently conducted is that it forecasts the trajectory of an outbreak only after it is underway in people. The best that data can do is inform a public health response, which places the United States in a reactive mode. We require proactive options to keep our troops and the homeland safe from emerging infectious disease threats.” According to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 60 percent of emerging infectious diseases reported globally are zoonoses, meaning that they were initially diseases of animals and at some point became capable of infecting people. Zoonotic diseases are responsible for millions of human deaths every year, and the scope of the challenge is increasing due to the densification of livestock production, human encroachment into natural spaces, and upward trends in globalization, temperature, and population. Ebola is a high-profile example of a zoonotic disease. Despite being relatively difficult to spread — requiring direct contact with fluids from infected organisms — a string of outbreaks over the past five years has highlighted the threat it could present once established in densely populated areas. Researchers express even greater concern over the pandemic potential of new strains of the influenza virus and other airborne pathogens. Even in the United States and its territories, where viruses do not frequently emerge directly from animal reservoirs, vector-borne transmission of zoonoses such as West Nile virus disease is on the rise. The 2018 U.S. National Biodefense Strategy directs that it is essential to detect and contain such bio-threats, adopting a proactive posture to improve preparedness while also assessing and managing any biosecurity risks related to possible interventions. “The health of the American people depends on our ability to stem infectious disease outbreaks at their source, wherever and however they occur,” the document states. For the Department of Defense, that obligation extends to protection of deployed service members, who often operate in countries that are “hot spots” for emerging viruses yet lack robust public health infrastructure. The teams DARPA selected for PREEMPT comprise multidisciplinary researchers who bring expertise and field experience from around the world, some of whom represent institutions from nations at high risk from emerging infectious disease. Institutions participating as sub-contractors to DARPA receive funding from the lead organizations except as otherwise noted. The PREEMPT teams proposed to model specific diseases to assess the risk of spillover from animals into humans, identify key bottlenecks in the process as opportunities for intervention, and develop and assess novel, animal- or insect-focused interventions with built-in safety switches to prevent cross-species jump. The teams will collect samples from animal reservoirs in the field for analysis in secure, bio-contained facilities; some teams will also conduct analysis on existing banked samples and datasets. DARPA is not funding the release of PREEMPT interventions into the environment. Autonomous Therapeutics, Inc., under principal investigator Dr. Ariel Weinberger, leads a team made up of CSIRO Australian Animal Health Laboratory; Navy Medical Research Unit-2, funded directly by DARPA; University of California, Los Angeles; University of Chicago Medical School; and University of Texas Medical Branch. The team will study air-borne highly pathogenic avian influenza virus in birds and small mammals, and tick-borne Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus. The Center for Comparative Medicine and the One Health Institute at the University of California, Davis, under principal investigator Dr. Peter Barry and co-PI Dr. Brian Bird, respectively, lead a team made up of the Leibniz Institute for Experimental Virology; Mount Sinai School of Medicine; Rocky Mountain Laboratories of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to be funded directly by DARPA; The Vaccine Group, Ltd., a spin-out of University of Plymouth; University of Glasgow; University of Idaho; and University of Western Australia. The team will examine Lassa virus spillover from rodents, and study Ebola virus in rhesus macaques. The Institut Pasteur, under principal investigator Dr. Carla Saleh, leads a team made up of Institut Pasteur International Network partners in Cambodia, Central African Republic, France, French Guiana, Madagascar, and Uruguay; Latham BioPharm Group; and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. The team will study several mosquito-borne arboviruses, which refers broadly to animal or human viruses transmitted by insects, as well as mosquito-specific viruses that could interfere with arbovirus infection in the insect vector. Montana State University, under principal investigator Dr. Raina Plowright, leads a team made up of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies; Colorado State University; Cornell University; Griffith University; Johns Hopkins University; NIH's Rocky Mountain Laboratories, funded directly by DARPA; Pennsylvania State University; Texas Tech University; University of California, Berkeley; University of California, Los Angeles; and University of Cambridge. The team will study henipavirus spillover from bats. The henipavirus genus of viruses contains multiple biothreat agents as categorized by NIH and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Pirbright Institute, under principal investigator Dr. Luke Alphey, leads a team made up of the University of Nottingham and the University of Tartu. The team seeks to disrupt mosquito transmission of flaviviruses, which include Dengue fever, West Nile, and Zika viruses. Modeling and quantification are as important as new experimental technologies in preventing cross-species jumps. The results from modeling will inform when, where, and at what levels such interventions could be applied to achieve the greatest health benefits. Interventions under consideration include animal- or insect-targeted vaccines, therapeutic interfering particles, gene editors, and indirect approaches informed by environmental and ecological factors that affect how viruses are spread — for instance, understanding the environmental stressors that drive bats into closer contact with humans and devising mitigating options to reduce the likelihood of that contact. The research teams' approaches each come with a unique set of potential benefits and challenges, and the teams are responsible for assessing and demonstrating to DARPA the safety, efficacy, stability, and controllability of their proposed interventions. In the future, these considerations could factor into decisions by the ultimate end users — communities, governments, and regulators — on which strategies to pursue to prevent new zoonoses. DARPA and the PREEMPT teams receive guidance from independent expert advisors in the ethical, legal, social, and regulatory aspects of the life sciences. These individuals include Dr. Claudia Emerson, director of the Institute on Ethics & Policy for Innovation at McMaster University; Dr. Matt Kasper, legislative liaison for the U.S. Navy's Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, and a former deputy director of field laboratory operations at the Naval Medical Research Center; and Dr. Steve Monroe, associate director for Laboratory Science and Safety at the CDC, and a former deputy director of the CDC's National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases. The teams also benefit from established relationships with local universities, communities, and governments based on prior or ongoing research. These relationships will facilitate initial field collection and help to familiarize stakeholders with PREEMPT technologies as they are being developed. DARPA is also beginning outreach to the WHO as a potential avenue for future transition of PREEMPT technologies. DARPA intends that PREEMPT teams will perform fundamental research and publish results for review by the broader scientific community. https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2019-02-19

All news