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

Related?

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Jobs...ations/LD--Test-Pilot-4-16008848/default.aspx

LD - Test Pilot 4-16008848

Job Location: Edwards AFB, CA 93523
Business Sector : Aerospace
SystemsLocation : Edwards AFB, CA 93523US
Citizenship Required for this Position: Yes
Relocation Assistance: Yes
Clearance Type: Secret
Number of Openings : 1
Shift : 1st Shift

Description

Test Pilot Responsibilities:
•Support vehicle design reviews, modeling and simulation reviews, laboratory system testing to ensure vehicle design is safe and effective from an aircrew perspective.
•Perform flight manual development meetings, watch item reviews, conduct simulator training and mission rehearsal training.
•Support technical and safety planning, mission planning, test card reviews, test technique development, and test plan reviews.
•Contribute to defining operating limitations, what-if documents, test hazard analysis (THAs) and test readiness reviews.
•Participate in flight test readiness reviews, pre and post-test briefings, post-test data evaluation and discrepancy resolution and document pilot reports, squawks and deficiency reports (DRs).
•Promotes aviation safety, efficiency, and effectiveness in flight test operations.

Overtime, odd shifts and weekend work will occasionally be required.

Qualifications

Basic Qualifications:
•BS in STEM discipline plus 9 years related experience.
•Military Test Pilot School graduate
•Operational flight experience in a military aircraft system.
•Commercial Single and Multi-Engine Land pilot license and instrument flight rating
•FAA Class 2 medical certificate
•Minimum of 1,500 hours First Pilot or Primary flight time.
•Ability to obtain and maintain a Secret security clearance
•Must be able to obtain a Top Secret clearance and Special Program Access (SAP)
•Ability to relay and receive information
•Able to collaborate in a team environment
•Able to prioritize and adjust tasks to accomplish the project result
•Ability to make decisions that impact the organization, operations and safety
•Ability to identify sequence of operations or action to be taken
•Able to prioritize multiple responsibilities and/or accomplishing them simultaneously


Preferred Qualifications:
•Master's degree in engineering or related discipline
•Familiar with government test organizations, ranges and processes
•Experience with joint contractor/government test ITTs.
Click to expand...
 
For the sake of something to discuss... ;D

If I recall the wonderful YF-23 documentary, the test pilots were engaged to help design the flight characteristics very early in the process. The fact that there is a request in for one test pilot seems quite odd to me that it would be for B-21. If there will be two or three test articles then one would expect at least as many pilots - no?

Evidently there are a number of NG Test Pilots currently employed. I'm guessing they've been primarily working on UAV's but they all have very distinguished backgrounds including at least a couple with B-2 experience. I can only imagine the competition going on internally to be one of the B-21 development pilots.

Perhaps the FNG is going to be put on UAV's and the existing guy's will be competing, if not already selected for B-21. That would be my hunch anyway.
 
NeilChapman said:
For the sake of something to discuss... ;D

If I recall the wonderful YF-23 documentary, the test pilots were engaged to help design the flight characteristics very early in the process. The fact that there is a request in for one test pilot seems quite odd to me that it would be for B-21. If there will be two or three test articles then one would expect at least as many pilots - no?

Evidently there are a number of NG Test Pilots currently employed. I'm guessing they've been primarily working on UAV's but they all have very distinguished backgrounds including at least a couple with B-2 experience. I can only imagine the competition going on internally to be one of the B-21 development pilots.

Perhaps the FNG is going to be put on UAV's and the existing guy's will be competing, if not already selected for B-21. That would be my hunch anyway.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the NG test pilots are already involved in the preliminary design phase. This job ad is probably just to make up for a retirement or resignation, and is not "creating" the B-21 FT team.
 
Airplane said:
Wow, just 10 more B-21 bombers, and there will be as many bombers as air superiority fighters.
Click to expand...

Did you mean "Air Dominance" fighters?

The F-22 is an "Air Dominance" fighter while the F-15/16/18/35 are "Air Superiority" fighters per NATO standardised definitions.
 
SpudmanWP said:
The F-22 is an "Air Dominance" fighter while the F-15/16/18/35 are "Air Superiority" fighters per NATO standardised definitions.
Click to expand...
How many legs does a cat have if you call a tail a leg? Four - calling the tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
 
lowchi said:
Related?

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Jobs/Edwards-AFB/Flight-Operations/LD--Test-Pilot-4-16008848/default.aspx
Click to expand...

NG has a lot of programs going on in the western states. For example NG manages the F-117 preservation program - which includes flight test.
 
quellish said:
lowchi said:
Related?

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Jobs/Edwards-AFB/Flight-Operations/LD--Test-Pilot-4-16008848/default.aspx
Click to expand...

NG has a lot of programs going on in the western states. For example NG manages the F-117 preservation program - which includes flight test.
Click to expand...

They will not have to do that much longer as I see the politicians are finally going to let the Air Force chop the F-117s up.
 
HASC Wants Details on New Bomber

—Jennifer Hlad5/6/2016

​The House Armed Services Committee wants more clarity on how many B-21s the Air Force needs to meet combatant commander requirements. The committee’s mark of the National Defense Authorization Act directs the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to HASC and the Senate Armed Services Committee estimating the number of B-21 aircraft USAF believes it needs to meet requirements, according to a committee summary of the bill. The report must also include a “detailed explanation” of how the analysis was done and what assumptions were made, a “range of numbers” to meet B-21 requirements given best-case and worst-case assumptions, and a detailed transition plan to integrate the B-21 into the bomber fleet. Air Force officials have said they must keep most details about the B-21—including its cost—secret, to avoid allowing adversaries to “connect the dots.” The Air Force initially said it plans to procure between 80 and 100 of the new bombers, though officials now say the number will be 100. However, the committee report notes HASC has received independent testimony saying USAF needs between 174 and 205 of the aircraft. (See also: Back to the Future Bomber.)
 
bobbymike said:
HASC Wants Details on New Bomber

—Jennifer Hlad5/6/2016

​The House Armed Services Committee wants more clarity on how many B-21s the Air Force needs to meet combatant commander requirements. The committee’s mark of the National Defense Authorization Act directs the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to HASC and the Senate Armed Services Committee estimating the number of B-21 aircraft USAF believes it needs to meet requirements, according to a committee summary of the bill. The report must also include a “detailed explanation” of how the analysis was done and what assumptions were made, a “range of numbers” to meet B-21 requirements given best-case and worst-case assumptions, and a detailed transition plan to integrate the B-21 into the bomber fleet. Air Force officials have said they must keep most details about the B-21—including its cost—secret, to avoid allowing adversaries to “connect the dots.” The Air Force initially said it plans to procure between 80 and 100 of the new bombers, though officials now say the number will be 100. However, the committee report notes HASC has received independent testimony saying USAF needs between 174 and 205 of the aircraft. (See also: Back to the Future Bomber.)
Click to expand...

80 is far, far too few. Look at how many Bones are in long term storage to the keep the rest of the 62 AC fleet flying. Extrapolating that to 80 production bombers, means after 10 years (or 12-15), with attrition, there will only be about 45 in service. If you want 100 in service, then what does that work out to, 140 copies?
 
Build the Bomber Fleet

—Brian Everstine

5/9/2016

​The Air Force’s current bomber fleet is well below the need for a credible deterrent in the future, meaning the service needs to procure the higher end of its projected 80-100 B-21s, the number two commander of US Strategic Command said Friday. Air Force Lt. Gen. Stephen Wilson, deputy commander of STRATCOM, said the military has “a deficit in long-range strike ability” and is dependent on aging bombers, the younger of which is still 25 years old. “We are not where we need to be,” Wilson said during an AFA Mitchell Institute event on Capitol Hill. Wilson, who previously served as commander of Air Force Global Strike Command, said the issue going forward on the air-based leg of the nuclear triad isn’t just in the size of the fleet, it’s also with the weapons themselves. There has been growing opposition to the long-range standoff missile, which is unfounded because without a new missile, “we lose the air leg of the triad in large measure,” Wilson said. The current air-launched cruise missile was designed in the 1970s and will not survive in a contested environment. The military doesn’t want to completely redesign the missile, just instead move the warhead to a new, survivable missile that “can make it to the target,” Wilson said. (See also: The Future of Long-Range Strike and AFA Urges Congress to Fund LRSO Missile.)
 
bobbymike said:
www.defenseone.com

Keep It Secret: Congress Should Back Off the B-21 Program

Lawmakers' calls for more transparency and fixed-price contracts will only hurt an Air Force acquisition effort that is doing well so far.
www.defenseone.com www.defenseone.com
Click to expand...

As I said months ago, this entire project needed to stay SAP. They shouldn't have even released artwork so far in advance. The rest of the world will use the US transparencies against it.
 
I agree keeping this program secret is vital I don't understand the game playng by Mc Cain .
 
dark sidius said:
I agree keeping this program secret is vital I don't understand the game playng by Mc Cain .
Click to expand...

Political grandstanding in an effort to be relevant. He'll jump on his soapbox about anything, fighters, bombers, aircraft carriers, whatever, if it gets his mug in front of a camera. Disgusting.
 
sferrin said:
dark sidius said:
I agree keeping this program secret is vital I don't understand the game playng by Mc Cain .
Click to expand...

Political grandstanding in an effort to be relevant. He'll jump on his soapbox about anything, fighters, bombers, aircraft carriers, whatever, if it gets his mug in front of a camera. Disgusting.
Click to expand...

Playing political games with defense is..... a crime, or ought to be.
I've often thought that what the US needs is two-three year defense budgets in place of a new budget every year.
I've also thought about the pro's and con's of letting the DoD choose what it spends it's money on, instead of Congress (dipshits) managing the money. Of course with civilian oversight, I think the generals and the joint chiefs would do a better job managing the money.
 
Airplane said:
sferrin said:
dark sidius said:
I agree keeping this program secret is vital I don't understand the game playng by Mc Cain .
Click to expand...

Political grandstanding in an effort to be relevant. He'll jump on his soapbox about anything, fighters, bombers, aircraft carriers, whatever, if it gets his mug in front of a camera. Disgusting.
Click to expand...

Playing political games with defense is..... a crime, or ought to be.
I've often thought that what the US needs is two-three year defense budgets in place of a new budget every year.
I've also thought about the pro's and con's of letting the DoD choose what it spends it's money on, instead of Congress (dipshits) managing the money. Of course with civilian oversight, I think the generals and the joint chiefs would do a better job managing the money.
Click to expand...
Believe me I have debated the issues you point out and yes politicians can be obtuse but the overall structure has produced, up until this point anyway, the strongest most high technology military force in the history of the planet.

I do agree there should be some more autonomy in weapons buying to some degree and changes to the acquisition system. I however am not smart enough to know what those might be that will ACTUALLY improve upon what we have, again given the results to date.
 
What's the future of the NG B-21 LRSB program and the US War Machine in general if 1) Trump is elected president; 2) Sanders is elected president; and 3) Clinton is elected president? -SP
 
Steve Pace said:
What's the future of the NG B-21 LRSB program and the US War Machine in general if 1) Trump is elected president; 2) Sanders is elected president; and 3) Clinton is elected president? -SP
Click to expand...
All good questions which should probably be moved to The Bar
 
LT weighs in:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2016/05/10/mccain-panel-focus-on-cost-of-secret-b-21-bomber-could-force-restructure/#4c5a40a668f0

This remark caught my eye:

The Air Force says it needs to be able to reimburse the winning team for the cost of resolving unforeseen problems that arise in integrating all the pieces into a working plane.
But that is only half of the reason for using a cost-plus contract.
The other part of the story, according to Senator Cotton, is that one of the two teams refused to bid if it had to accept a fixed-price development contract.
That team presumably was Northrop Grumman’s . The competing Boeing team offered the government a fixed-price agreement (Boeing contributes to my think tank).
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine.
 
Northrop must have had a great design if the USAF wanted it that bad.
 
Boeing with a fixed price it's realy laughing when we look about the tanker they must build, what was the boeing project a stealth 767 with a rotary launcher :D
 
Fixed price contracts are rarely worth the paper they are written on.

breakingdefense.com

RAND Finds Little Hope Fixed Price Deals Control Costs - Breaking Defense

The Program Executive Officer for the KC-46, Brig. Gen. Duke Richardson, made a rare public appearance today at the Air Force Association to discuss his program, which has been hammered by schedule programs and cost growth. Fortunately, none of this costs the taxpayer a dime because it’s a fixed...
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
marauder2048 said:
LT weighs in:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenth...-bomber-could-force-restructure/#4c5a40a668f0

This remark caught my eye:

The Air Force says it needs to be able to reimburse the winning team for the cost of resolving unforeseen problems that arise in integrating all the pieces into a working plane.
But that is only half of the reason for using a cost-plus contract.
The other part of the story, according to Senator Cotton, is that one of the two teams refused to bid if it had to accept a fixed-price development contract.
That team presumably was Northrop Grumman’s . The competing Boeing team offered the government a fixed-price agreement (Boeing contributes to my think tank).
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine.
Click to expand...

No way to tell if NG was the team that required it but.... my sense is that they've lost "enough" money working without responsible contracts. They spent 1.2 billion on F-20 and another billion on YF-23. Both projects, IMHO, were great airplanes that did not go forward because of dismal NG marketing acumen and __________ government policy.

I don't know why, but I still long to see the YF-23's fly again. Something about the entire story, a gritty engineering company, tremendous amounts of hard work and soul, stunningly beautiful planes, fast, sleek and "dominating with style" makes me wistful to see them traversing the country as an example of "the art of the possible."

Ahhhh well. You have to be able to dream it, build it and sell the customer on how cool he'll be owning it.

(An interesting link for any interested in the F-20)
 
Airplane said:
bobbymike said:
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/05/b-21-bomber-program-doesnt-need-back-seat-drivers/128137/?oref=d-river
Click to expand...

As I said months ago, this entire project needed to stay SAP. They shouldn't have even released artwork so far in advance. The rest of the world will use the US transparencies against it.
Click to expand...

I'd rather trust the USAF know what they are doing when it comes to releasing details on this project, than the internet peanut gallery.
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Fixed price contracts are rarely worth the paper they are written on.

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/09/rand-finds-little-hope-fixed-price-deals-control-costs/
Click to expand...

The RAND study (now about a decade old) has been contradicted by more recent studies (CSIS) and, confusingly, some of IDA's work which was cited in the article.
Admittedly, it's a very hard topic to tackle and of lot of the results depend on which inflation index (the different services use different indicies) is selected.
 
The unfortunate reality is that when you're at the bleeding edge there are more unknown unknowns.
 
Betting on the Bomber

—John A. Tirpak

5/11/2016


​The B-21 bomber is a “good business deal” for Northrop Grumman, but the details of the deal are still being worked out, Pentagon acquisition, technology, and logistics chief Frank Kendall said Tuesday. Bidding on the bomber was “very aggressive,” he said, and the reason “it took so long” to award the contract was because the Pentagon wanted to make sure it was “comfortable” with the risks being taken, and those discussions are apparently still ongoing. A good deal, he said, is one in which “the Department gets a product we need at a reasonable price,” and the contractor gets a “reasonable return” but can do so “without betting the company.” Kendall said he thinks the Pentagon accomplished that goal with the B-21. Though some on Capitol Hill are demanding that the whole program be fixed-price, Kendall noted that there was a “fad” of fixed-price contracting in the 1980s, and it produced spectacular and expensive failures. Kendall said he’s had to spend a lot of time “cleaning that mess up.” Military contracting is not like commercial contracting, he said, and cost-plus—in certain phases of a program—makes sense because it gives the Pentagon “flexibility” in being able to adjust schedules or requirements without breaking the contract. The bomber will be mostly fixed-price, but those stages that are cost-plus provide heavy incentives for Northrop Grumman to hit schedule and cost targets. “Incentives work,” Kendall said. “We get what we reward.” (See also Why a Cost-Plus Bomber.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B-21 Nickname Down to a List of 15

5/11/2016

​The future name of the new B-21 bomber is down to 15 contenders. The Air Force Global Strike Command leadership chose the list of its favorites from the more than 4,600 entries received during a service-wide contest to name the platform that ended May 5, according to a May 10 release. Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James announced the name challenge in February at AFA’s Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Fla. In the coming months, she and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force will select the winner. The moniker is scheduled to be announced at the Air Force Association’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference at National Harbor, Md., in September.
 
bobbymike said:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/revealed-inside-the-air-forces-shadowy-b-21-stealth-bomber-16195
Click to expand...

bobbymike said:
The idea is to design a bomber able to fly, operate and strike anywhere in the world without an enemy even knowing an aircraft is there. This was the intention of the original B-2 bomber, which functioned in that capacity for many years, until technological advances in air defense made it harder for it to avoid detection completely.
Click to expand...

How is it that so many journalists find themselves reporting from some alternate universe without realizing it?
 
Well, if I had to write all day long about all kinds of topics, even those I don't have a clue about, and had to still pretend to be authoritative, I could get there pretty fast too.
It does not increase my respect for their profession, but that's how most of them try to earn a living.
 
an unexpected sensation! how to write fifty lines of F-35 while writing five on B-21
 
Chiefs, Secretaries Rally for B-21
—JENNIFER HLAD5/24/2016

www.airforcemag.com

Daily Report | Air & Space Forces Magazine

CMSgt. Terrence Greene, then-command chief for US Forces Japan and Fifth Air Force, prepares for an interview at Misawa AB, Japan, on Feb. 23, 2018. Greene now serves as command chief for Air Mobility Command. Air Force photo by A1C Collette Brooks.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com

foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com

How The Air Force Can Avoid Turning The B-21 Into An Expensive Mess Like The F-35

U.S. Air Force programs of the past few decades have had a tendency to go off the rails. Here's how the B-21 program can avoid that fate.
foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com

The B-21 Ultimatum
—JENNIFER HLAD5/24/2016

www.airforcemag.com

Daily Report | Air & Space Forces Magazine

CMSgt. Terrence Greene, then-command chief for US Forces Japan and Fifth Air Force, prepares for an interview at Misawa AB, Japan, on Feb. 23, 2018. Greene now serves as command chief for Air Mobility Command. Air Force photo by A1C Collette Brooks.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com
 
Air Force Has Provided B-21 Costs to Congress

—Jennifer Hlad

5/31/2016

The Air Force has already provided the value of the B-21 contract award, as well as other details, to both defense committees, despite a provision in the Senate’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act that suggests otherwise. The legislation states that no Fiscal 2017 funding will be given for the B-21 engineering, manufacturing, and development program “until the Air Force releases the value of the B-21 EMD contract award made on Oct. 27, 2015, to the congressional defense committees.” However, Maj. Robert Leese, an Air Force spokesman, told Air Force Magazine that after the contract award, “the B-21 program office provided briefs to the committees, their members, and professional staff, detailing the contract award, to include outlining the independent cost estimate and classified contract award value.” Leese said the B-21 program office has been “consistently transparent” with the Congressional defense committees and the Government Accountability Office over the past four years, and has conducted classified briefs to explain the acquisition strategy, funding, and cost estimates
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom