Will there be political pressure to issue the next contract to a someone other than LM? I can imagine a desire to spread the defence budget around a bit. KenV, any insight into this?
It sure makes sense, but who really knows? With LM busy building and supporting F-35 for decades to come, it would make sense to find someone other than LM for this big trainer contract to keep the industrial base going. So it's not so much about "spreading around the defense dollars", as it is about keeping the industrial base healthy. Having LM as the only builder of tactical jets would in my opinion be unhealthy for the industrial base. And maybe that's why LM is not investing in a clean sheet design. Maybe they think that USAF will never select them. Maybe. And LM saying that a clean sheet design offers no performance advantages while incurring cost and schedule penalties is contradicted by the other primes who have withdrawn their modified existing designs in favor of clean sheet designs.
Northrup Grumman was tied in with Bae to offer a modified Hawk, but they pivoted to a clean sheet design due to concerns with the sustained G turn requirement. But neither Northrup nor Grumman have designed or built a tactical jet in decades, so it'll be interesting to see what they come up with, both in terms of design as well as the support package. And L-3 being a member of this team means they have a team member with a long history of providing military simulators (Link). The simulator training package is a very critical part of the overall proposal.
General Dynamics was tied in with Alenia to offer the T-100 based on the M-346, but they pulled out for the same sustained G reason. I've heard no announcements of GD starting over with a clean sheet design. Alenia is looking for another prime to team with. So far no takers. And they don't seem to have tied in with a proven provider of simulator training, a very important piece to be missing.
Saab is using their Gripen experience to come up with a clean sheet design, with Boeing as the prime. Saab is convinced they have a winning design, both in terms of performance and cost. But they're keeping their design under wraps, no public releases yet. I've seen early design sketches which look rather Gripenish, but that has reportedly changed as USAF released their requirements. I haven't seen the new stuff. And Boeing owns Flight Safety, so this team also has a proven contractor that provides military simulators. So with two contractors who have current tactical jet design, assembly and support experience, and extensive military simulator training experience, this team may be the one to beat. Assuming they win, I'll probably be retired from Boeing before this program goes into low rate production, never mind full rate production.
Textron thinks they can offer a modified Scorpion, but I personally don't see how that aircraft can hope to meet the sustained G requirement as well as all that 5th Gen cockpit stuff. And I don't see them having much military simulator training experience. They don't look like a serious contender to me.