Northrop Grumman B-21A Raider (LRS-B)

Deino said:
flateric said:
This shadow on the floor...
Click to expand...

??? :-\
Click to expand...

Big nose!

There's another aircraft in this isn't there. Spotted the B-2, X47, Sixth generation fighter concept, L-RSB. But there's another big flying wing in it with engines very close together (about 16/17 seconds in), it doesn't look like any of NG's known flying wings?
 
With all those cryptic ads, shadows on clouds, shadow on the ground, shape under wraps... Northrop wins the teasing contest hands down... too bad that Boeing/LM did not respond with similarly enjoyable stuff.

The clouds video at least may be worth an image processing exercise: I could swear I see some sort of canards at the front (or "Christmas Fighter"-like configuration).
Christmas Fighter inlet configuration is not unlike some of the published artist renderings (and consistent with the silhouette under wraps), but I have no clue as to why they would put canards on a LO bomber...
Other shadows on other clouds also bring supersonic designs to mind: YB-70, or even Tu-144.

In short: could be the shadows of just about anything, excellent teasing.
And btw, does the PR dept even know how the proposed aircraft actually looks like?
 
NeilChapman said:
Perhaps it's an RQ-180 @ 16/17 seconds?
Click to expand...

Allegedly it is there on the computer screen on right hand side at 5 sec,above the sixth gen fighters at 16 sec and on the left hand side of the carrier at the end.

I've spotted the middle instance myself, it is high up above the sixth gen fighters. The first is definitely the X-47B & I can't see the third one.
 
Those are all X-47Bs; they may seem different due to the appearance of 2 exhausts, but that's just the exhaust divider; otherwise, everything else about them resembles the X-47B.

1dff76e4f5f512f6196cde9422d6f13e.jpg
 
Dragon029 said:
1dff76e4f5f512f6196cde9422d6f13e.jpg
Click to expand...

Maybe one of the aero engineers can answer, but what is the splitter for? I don't see how it could reduce IR. Is it part of a more advanced radar blocker like employed in the -22s?
 
Airplane said:
Maybe one of the aero engineers can answer, but what is the splitter for? I don't see how it could reduce IR. Is it part of a more advanced radar blocker like employed in the -22s?
Click to expand...

Its likely much more mundane; something to hold the top of the exhaust to the bottom and stop it trying to be a circle again...
 
That exhaust doesn't look super-stealthy. But then, for the purposes of the X-47B demo it wouldn't need to represent the real design. Most of the real design elements could be ground-tested anyway. And if I have a super-stealthy, efficient and durable serpentine flattened exhaust, I'm not going to show it to the unwashed masses, am I?
 
LowObservable said:
That exhaust doesn't look super-stealthy. But then, for the purposes of the X-47B demo it wouldn't need to represent the real design. Most of the real design elements could be ground-tested anyway. And if I have a super-stealthy, efficient and durable serpentine flattened exhaust, I'm not going to show it to the unwashed masses, am I?
Click to expand...

It may be that they are not bothered with the exhausts stealth qualities because after all it is only a prototype aircraft, they will no doubt be working on a solution to the exhaust issue if and when full scale production gets under way. And another thing I saw an early design of the X-47 featuring a flat exhaust many years ago in a book or magazine (can't remember which).
 
FighterJock said:
LowObservable said:
That exhaust doesn't look super-stealthy. But then, for the purposes of the X-47B demo it wouldn't need to represent the real design. Most of the real design elements could be ground-tested anyway. And if I have a super-stealthy, efficient and durable serpentine flattened exhaust, I'm not going to show it to the unwashed masses, am I?
Click to expand...

It may be that they are not bothered with the exhausts stealth qualities because after all it is only a prototype aircraft, they will no doubt be working on a solution to the exhaust issue if and when full scale production gets under way. And another thing I saw an early design of the X-47 featuring a flat exhaust many years ago in a book or magazine (can't remember which).
Click to expand...


Does the X-47B have thrust vectoring for yaw control?
 
FighterJock said:
It may be that they are not bothered with the exhausts stealth qualities because after all it is only a prototype aircraft, they will no doubt be working on a solution to the exhaust issue if and when full scale production gets under way.
Click to expand...

Both X-47 designs are technology demonstrators. The X-47B was designed without any real concessions to stealth - it is only intended to be "representative" at a high level. The overall planform and configuration is representative of a stealth aircraft. This was done because those things tend to influence handling and landing speed, etc. on a carrier.

The X-47B is not stealthy, wasn't intended to be, and was/is not intended for production.
 
marauder2048 said:
NeilChapman said:
sferrin said:
FighterJock said:
bring_it_on said:
It is most likely 100 calendar days since its the maximum allotted time for such protests unless an exception is made (iirc). Express decisions can be made in 65 or less days.
Click to expand...

So that would be mid-February before there is anything like a decision announcement for the Lockheed Boeing protest. Another thing, I hope that they fail in their bid.
Click to expand...

"Another thing, I hope that they fail in their bid. "

And get stuck with a bill for wasting everybody's time.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation. They pretty much have to protest, don't they? It's a public company. Stockholders would be upset if they didn't.

On the other hand, it would be nice if there was a comensurate penalty for a frivolous protest. This is costing us the taxpayer at minimum "lost opportunity" in getting this system fielded. We're talking about national security, not fleet vehicles for DOT. Perhaps they lose the opportunity to protest a bid for some period of time (5 years?) plus the cost of the protest (administrative, lost production time, etc). I'd like to see something that includes cost + a punitive piece since the $$ will just come out of shareholders pockets.

It is frustrating.
Click to expand...

Privately held General Atomics protests just as much as everyone else.

Blame Robert Gates for the real delays in fielding this system. But consider that If as a result of the protest, the winning team agrees to do EMD on a fixed-price incentive fee basis surely that's a good thingTM
Click to expand...



So there is no risk to protesting. There needs to be risk - significant risk.

Perhaps we'll find out next week the GAO's finding?
 
NeilChapman said:
So there is no risk to protesting. There needs to be risk - significant risk.

Perhaps we'll find out next week the GAO's finding?
Click to expand...

The risk (aside from wasted attorney, consultant and expert witness fees) is that GAO denies the protest which is typically kryptonite to any subsequent action in the federal courts.
OTOMH, I can't recall a case where GAO denied but the courts definitively sustained though no doubt someone will chime in with an example.
 

Bomber Money Down, Missile Money Up In Budget Request
Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

Bill Sweetman

Tue, 2016-02-09 16:53
THE PENTAGON – Lower budgets for the Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) and a big boost for a replacement intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) are two surprises in the fiscal 2017 budget.
Through fiscal 2020, the new budget takes $3.5 billion out of the LRS-B, and even with 2021 money – bringing total spending across the 2017-21 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) to $12.1 billion – the total is just below what was previously planned by 2020. However, the Air Force – in an immediate response to publication of the numbers – insists that the classified program’s schedule has not slipped, but that the service has adopted a new independent cost estimate.

This reflects the fact that both competitors bid well below the Pentagon’s original independent cost estimates for the program – a situation that led to the Lockheed Martin/Boeing protest of the award to Northrop Grumman, on which the Government Accountability Office is expected to rule imminently.

At the same time, the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) replacement for the Minuteman ICBM gets a more-than-doubled budget, starting in 2018. For 2018-20, the fiscal 2017 budget funds GBSD at $1.65 billion, versus $750 million in last year’s proposal, and another $1.58 billion in 2021. The 2018-20 money mostly covers the Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR) phase, which is clearly being enlarged and is due to start this summer, while the fiscal 2021 funding covers the first full year 0f engineering and manufacturing development, planned to begin in the third quarter of fiscal 2020.

TMRR contracts for the Long-Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO), the replacement for the AGM-86 Air-Launched Cruise Missile, are expected to be let in the third quarter of fiscal 2017 (early next calendar year) a nine-month slippage compared to plans a year ago. However, funding levels have not changed significantly and the TMRR program is budgeted at $2.19 billion through the FYDP.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
both competitors bid well below the Pentagon’s original independent cost estimates for the program
Click to expand...
This something new. So essentially Northrop and Boing both told USAF they can build the bomber for a lot less than USAF had planned to spent?
 
I'm not sure if this has been posted here before, but I Googled LRS-B and I found this interesting image. It probably isn't accurate, but I thought it was interesting. :)


Regards,

BlastWave
 

Attachments

  • LRS-B Speculation.jpg
    LRS-B Speculation.jpg
    78.7 KB · Views: 294
Airplane said:
Dragon029 said:
1dff76e4f5f512f6196cde9422d6f13e.jpg
Click to expand...

Maybe one of the aero engineers can answer, but what is the splitter for? I don't see how it could reduce IR. Is it part of a more advanced radar blocker like employed in the -22s?
Click to expand...
I do systems, not aero, but my guess is that it's a stiffener for the duct.
 
marauder2048 said:
NeilChapman said:
So there is no risk to protesting. There needs to be risk - significant risk.

Perhaps we'll find out next week the GAO's finding?
Click to expand...

The risk (aside from wasted attorney, consultant and expert witness fees) is that GAO denies the protest which is typically kryptonite to any subsequent action in the federal courts.
OTOMH, I can't recall a case where GAO denied but the courts definitively sustained though no doubt someone will chime in with an example.
Click to expand...

I'm not following. You're stating that Primes take the Federal Government to court over a lost contract bid? I never would have thought that had a chance of getting to court. You don't, perhaps, happen to recall some examples that I could research to understand this better?

Thanks!
 
Via afrl presentation. It will be interesting to see how/if the "modular bays" make it into the production LRS-B

Sentinel
 

Attachments

  • AFRLslides.png
    AFRLslides.png
    303.3 KB · Views: 639
Sentinel36k said:
Via afrl presentation. It will be interesting to see how/if the "modular bays" make it into the production LRS-B

Sentinel
Click to expand...
Have the full presentation?
 
Air Force reveals $12 billion funding plan for new bomber -- and little else

The Air Force has reworked the Long-Range Strike Bomber funding profile, proposing a five-year, $12 billion research and development allocation between fiscal years 2017 and 2021 -- a $1.7 billion reduction compared to last year's outlook -- and reflecting the first budget request to factor Northrop Grumman as prime contractor on the high-priority aircraft project.
 
NeilChapman said:
marauder2048 said:
NeilChapman said:
So there is no risk to protesting. There needs to be risk - significant risk.

Perhaps we'll find out next week the GAO's finding?
Click to expand...

The risk (aside from wasted attorney, consultant and expert witness fees) is that GAO denies the protest which is typically kryptonite to any subsequent action in the federal courts.
OTOMH, I can't recall a case where GAO denied but the courts definitively sustained though no doubt someone will chime in with an example.
Click to expand...

I'm not following. You're stating that Primes take the Federal Government to court over a lost contract bid? I never would have thought that had a chance of getting to court. You don't, perhaps, happen to recall some examples that I could research to understand this better?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

You can protest sequentially with GAO and then the Court of Federal Claims but losing the GAO protest typically dooms the federal court protest since the GAO protest ruling (and supporting documents)
will be entered into evidence and the GAO counsels who handled the protest will be called as witnesses. Take a look at the GAO protest lost and subsequent federal court cases lost by Raytheon to NG and LM on 3DELRR

This is also why for JLTV Lockheed vacated the GAO protest and filed in federal court when it became apparent that GAO was moving to deny.
 
Speaking of protests, this is probably not what the Air Force wanted on the eve of the LRS-B protest decision..

U.S. Air Force replaces arms buyer over disclosure issue on Northrop
The U.S. Air Force said on Thursday it had replaced its acting acquisition chief, Richard Lombardi, after he disclosed that he had failed to report his wife's Northrop Grumman Corp retirement account on his annual financial disclosure form.

The news came days before the U.S. Government Accountability Office is due to rule on a protest filed by Boeing Co and Lockheed Martin Corp against the Air Force's decision in October to award an $80 billion long-range bomber contract to Northrop.

Lombardi was not involved in the bomber competition, an Air Force spokesman said. Lombardi declined comment via a spokesman.

Experts said the incident could spur Boeing to amend its protest. Boeing had no immediate comment.

Northrop told Reuters it had confirmed that Lombardi was not a member of the source selection team that awarded the bomber contract, and remained confident that the Air Force had chosen the best solution to meet its bomber requirements.

Lombardi, a former Air Force officer and long-time public servant, had assumed the role of acting assistant secretary for acquisition and service acquisition executive on Dec. 1 when William LaPlante resigned to take a job in private industry.

Lombardi, who had been the principal deputy to LaPlante, did not participate in the bomber award and was not acting assistant secretary or service acquisition executive at the time of the contract award, said Air Force spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Karns.

Air Force Secretary Deborah James removed Lombardi from his acquisition duties on Thursday and reassigned him to another position after learning of his voluntary disclosure, Karns said. She referred the matter to the Pentagon's inspector general.

James named Darlene Costello, a senior official in the Pentagon's acquisition office, to take over Lombardi's duties as principal deputy assistant secretary for acquisition and logistics. She named Air Force Undersecretary Lisa Disbrow as the acting service acquisition executive, overseeing $40 billion in research, development and procurement programs, he said.

"It is critically important to maintain a high level of public confidence in the integrity of our programs and operations," Karns said.

It was not immediately clear when Lombardi disclosed the issue or how long Lombardi's wife worked for the U.S. weapons maker.

In 2005, another former principal deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force, Darleen Druyun, served nine months in prison after pleading guilty to an ethics violation after discussing a job with Boeing while overseeing its business with the Air Force.

In 2007, another person who held the same job, Charles Riechers, committed suicide while under scrutiny for collecting nearly $27,000 in wages from a contractor while awaiting Senate confirmation.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal; Editing by Cynth
Click to expand...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-airforce-idUSKCN0VK2NF
 
FighterJock said:
XP67_Moonbat said:
Oh great.
Click to expand...

Don't panic just yet. The decision is still to come.
Click to expand...

Yeah but be prepared to see Boeing, and every politician who has their hand out, rush to the mics to make mountains out of this mole hill.
 
marauder2048 said:
NeilChapman said:
marauder2048 said:
NeilChapman said:
So there is no risk to protesting. There needs to be risk - significant risk.

Perhaps we'll find out next week the GAO's finding?
Click to expand...

The risk (aside from wasted attorney, consultant and expert witness fees) is that GAO denies the protest which is typically kryptonite to any subsequent action in the federal courts.
OTOMH, I can't recall a case where GAO denied but the courts definitively sustained though no doubt someone will chime in with an example.
Click to expand...

I'm not following. You're stating that Primes take the Federal Government to court over a lost contract bid? I never would have thought that had a chance of getting to court. You don't, perhaps, happen to recall some examples that I could research to understand this better?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

You can protest sequentially with GAO and then the Court of Federal Claims but losing the GAO protest typically dooms the federal court protest since the GAO protest ruling (and supporting documents)
will be entered into evidence and the GAO counsels who handled the protest will be called as witnesses. Take a look at the GAO protest lost and subsequent federal court cases lost by Raytheon to NG and LM on 3DELRR

This is also why for JLTV Lockheed vacated the GAO protest and filed in federal court when it became apparent that GAO was moving to deny.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. Thanks for the information. I'll look to see what I can find on these.
 
Just to keep the speculation going... ;)
 

Attachments

  • average.jpg
    average.jpg
    36 KB · Views: 292
;)
 

Attachments

  • Tintin_cover_-_Destination_Moon.jpg
    Tintin_cover_-_Destination_Moon.jpg
    64.7 KB · Views: 196
  • Tintin_cover_-_Explorers_on_the_Moon.jpg
    Tintin_cover_-_Explorers_on_the_Moon.jpg
    73.1 KB · Views: 29
I'd have thought with this latest revelation that they will have to re-compete in order to remove any possible question over the choice.
 
Flyaway said:
I'd have thought with this latest revelation that they will have to re-compete in order to remove any possible question over the choice.
Click to expand...

He wasn't involved in the choice, therefore there isn't a conflict of interest. Not to mention, there were also independent third party reviews of the down select that supported the decision as well. As such, it seems to me it would be incredibly difficult to prove a conflict of interest without going into full bore tinfoil hat territory.
 
Hi all!!!

Some time ago I began to share some of my designs in the forum.
Now I have a new project: I want to draw the Northrop LRS-B. I hope to finish before the B3 fly !!!
I made comparisons with the commercials, using screenshots and Mechanical Desktop and 3Ds Max to emulate prospects.
I believe in a 95.33% (hahaha) to the front and the leading edge, are as shown in the image (black lines).
The rear (red lines) is what generates me doubts.
So what you see in the teaser, by the arrangement of the nozzles, the C option is what convinces me.
But the A or B, are more conventional and more like the X-47B.
I wonder that you say !!!
PS PedrosPe also will draw your model, hahaha !!!!
 

Attachments

  • lrsb_top.jpg
    lrsb_top.jpg
    75.5 KB · Views: 482
Looks solid to me. Now how about a teaser picture, USAF? (Not likely)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom