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

Interesting. I wonder how long before we hear, "Northrop had 10 weaknesses and Boeing only had 4, government corruption, crooked MIC, blah, blah, blah" with zero thought or awareness to the magnitude of the weaknesses.
 
sferrin said:
Interesting. I wonder how long before we hear, "Northrop had 10 weaknesses and Boeing only had 4, government corruption, crooked MIC, blah, blah, blah" with zero thought or awareness to the magnitude of the weaknesses.
Click to expand...


I'm just excerpting as I read (if someone could OCR that pdf it would be very helpful) but GAO very helpfully described the technical subfactors below.

But what killed Boeing, IMHO, was that the technical experts retained by Boeing who were granted access to Northrop's technical proposal failed to
submit any supporting expert technical opinion that Northrop's actual design approach was technically risky.
 

Attachments

  • technical-capability-subfactors.png
    technical-capability-subfactors.png
    122.2 KB · Views: 516
  • boeing-competitive-analysis-fails-to-show-northrop-technical-risks.png
    boeing-competitive-analysis-fails-to-show-northrop-technical-risks.png
    121.6 KB · Views: 507
"was that the technical experts retained by Boeing "

That right there almost sounds like a red flag. Why weren't they already on staff?
 
sferrin said:
"was that the technical experts retained by Boeing "

That right there almost sounds like a red flag. Why weren't they already on staff?
Click to expand...

It seems likely that Boeing's own staff were not allowed to see Northrop's proposal, as that would contain proprietary information. So Boeing had to hire consultants who could be credibly firewalled from the company's actual development team.
 
TomS said:
sferrin said:
"was that the technical experts retained by Boeing "

That right there almost sounds like a red flag. Why weren't they already on staff?
Click to expand...

It seems likely that Boeing's own staff were not allowed to see Northrop's proposal, as that would contain proprietary information. So Boeing had to hire consultants who could be credibly firewalled from the company's actual development team.
Click to expand...

Good point. What a PITA navigating all the hoops must be. :p
 
word DELETED count: 101 :)
 

Attachments

  • 680622 ocr'ed.pdf
    1.2 MB · Views: 41
So the takeaway is that the Air Force, in what I think is a first, ran a competition for a strategic system on a lowest-price, technically acceptable basis.

Boeing's design had fewer technical weaknesses but none of the weaknesses for either design
resulted in risk that exceeded "moderate" or enough to render them technically unacceptable.

I am curious at which program Boeing was referring to below (my highlight):
 

Attachments

  • deleted-program.png
    deleted-program.png
    195.3 KB · Views: 401
marauder2048 said:
So the takeaway is that the Air Force, in what I think is a first, ran a competition for a strategic system on a lowest-price, technically acceptable basis.

Boeing's design had fewer technical weaknesses but none of the weaknesses for either design
resulted in risk that exceeded "moderate" or enough to render them technically unacceptable.

I am curious at which program Boeing was referring to below (my highlight):
Click to expand...

I wonder if it's a reference to the demonstrator aircraft they and LM reportedly flew?
 
Summing up the document.

www.defensenews.com

Game Over: GAO Protest Reveals Cost Was Deciding Factor in B-21 Contest

Eight months ago, the Government Accountability Office shot down Boeing’s protest of the government’s decision to award the B-21 bomber contract to competitor Northrop Grumman. With the Tuesday release of its 52-page decision, the public now can read why.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

I suppose people will still wonder if this decision was driven by a desire to protect the industrial base as much as anything.
 
Sundog said:
marauder2048 said:
So the takeaway is that the Air Force, in what I think is a first, ran a competition for a strategic system on a lowest-price, technically acceptable basis.

Boeing's design had fewer technical weaknesses but none of the weaknesses for either design
resulted in risk that exceeded "moderate" or enough to render them technically unacceptable.

I am curious at which program Boeing was referring to below (my highlight):
Click to expand...

I wonder if it's a reference to the demonstrator aircraft they and LM reportedly flew?
Click to expand...

It is not likely that when the document talks about "commonality" with Boeing proposal and Boeings >fill in the blank< that they are talking about demonstrator versus proposal. Sounds more like an actual program. What do you think they are doing out in the middle of no where with all those hangars?
 
Flyaway said:
I suppose people will still wonder if this decision was driven by a desire to protect the industrial base as much as anything.
Click to expand...

I didn't get a sense of that from the protest document; Northrop was better engaged with the Air Force during the eight rounds
of discussions and while Boeing got productivity credit for its design and manufacturing innovations (in terms of reduced total labor hours)
they were not given credit for a commensurate reduction in labor costs because the supporting cost data was deemed to be immature.

Plus, Northrop's workforce looks like it was willing to take a wage hit to win.
 
Flyaway said:
I suppose people will still wonder if this decision was driven by a desire to protect the industrial base as much as anything.
Click to expand...

That mindset is pretty difficult to justify given Northrop is the only company that's ever built a stealth bomber and that Boeing has never put a stealth aircraft into service.
 
sferrin said:
Flyaway said:
I suppose people will still wonder if this decision was driven by a desire to protect the industrial base as much as anything.
Click to expand...

That mindset is pretty difficult to justify given Northrop is the only company that's ever built a stealth bomber and that Boeing has never put a stealth aircraft into service.
Click to expand...


From the document page 41.

"
In this regard, as addressed above, between technically acceptable offerors, the RFP provided that if the higher TEP (total evaluated price) was more than 103 percent of the lower TEP, award was to be made to the lower TEP proposal. If instead, the higher TEP was within 103 percent of the lower TEP, then the proposals were to be compared on the basis of TWP (total weighted price), and award made to the lower TWP proposal. AR, Tab 4c, RFP Amendment 0003, at 44. As relevant, the offeror's final TEPs/TWPs were calculated as follows:

...
...
...
AR, Tab 174, Comparative Analysis Report, at 8.

As described above, the SSA concluded that Boeing's higher TEP of .... was greater than 103 percent of Northrop's lower TEP of .... and that, therefore, Northrop's proposal represented the best value without consideration of the TWPs. This conclusion however, obscures the fact that even if Boeing's higher TEP was reduced to within 103 percent of Northrop's lower TEP, Northrop would remain the best value on the basis of its lower TWP. Further, even if Boeing's TEP were lower than Northrop's TEP, if Northrop's higher TEP remained within 103 percent of Boeing's lower TEP, Northrop would continue to represent the best value on the basis of its lower TWP."


So Boeing's Total Evaluated Price was more than 103% higher than NG. Their Total Weighted Price was also higher.

You're never double the cost of your competitor and not know it. They weren't all in on this deal that's for sure. Wonder if they'll make the same mistake with T-X.
 
sferrin said:
Flyaway said:
I suppose people will still wonder if this decision was driven by a desire to protect the industrial base as much as anything.
Click to expand...

That mindset is pretty difficult to justify given Northrop is the only company that's ever built a stealth bomber and that Boeing has never put a stealth aircraft into service.
Click to expand...

That we know of; we still don't know who built the aircraft seen over Texas.
 
Sundog said:
sferrin said:
Flyaway said:
I suppose people will still wonder if this decision was driven by a desire to protect the industrial base as much as anything.
Click to expand...

That mindset is pretty difficult to justify given Northrop is the only company that's ever built a stealth bomber and that Boeing has never put a stealth aircraft into service.
Click to expand...

That we know of; we still don't know who built the aircraft seen over Texas.
Click to expand...

My first impression at reading the redacted program to which Boeing was referring was that there is an unacknowledged B-2 derivative out there.
 
marauder2048 said:
My first impression at reading the redacted program to which Boeing was referring was that there is an unacknowledged B-2 derivative out there.
Click to expand...

Which part are you referring to?
 
From Northrop's Q3 conference call :

Carter Copeland - Barclays Capital, Inc.

Wes, want to ask, I know you can't talk about the program, but I want to ask a fundamental sort of overarching question about cost. Clearly, the redacted GAO document has nice things to say about your labor rates and labor costs. And as you think about competitiveness and winning business, because there's a lot of it still out there to win, is there anything we should read into that, fundamental decisions that you've made as an organization to make those rates more competitive? I mean, what should we read into that kind of commentary and what it means for your opportunities for the future? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Wesley G. Bush - Northrop Grumman Corp.

Well, Carter, I am glad you asked about that. With the GAO report out, and by the way, we are delighted that the GAO report has come out. I think it is important for the clarity that that report provides. It makes it clear that the GAO did perform a very rigorous and deliberate review of the work that the Air Force did, and its very thorough selection process. And it, I thought, made the very compelling case of validating that the Air Force clearly chose the most capable and affordable solution.

And, in reading that GAO report, I know there are a lot of lines that are sort of blacked out, but I think it's important to, as you did, really kind of dig in and understand some of what was said there. First, I think you'll see in that report the continuing discipline that we bring to the bidding process that we've been demonstrating time and again over the years. Some years ago, and it was after we had initially been awarded a multibillion-dollar tanker program, we chose to walk away from the second round of bidding on that, because it was pretty clear to us that the new acquisition approach simply would not be an attractive program for our company or for our shareholders. And we've declined to bid on a number of other programs over the years for the same reason. And as the GAO report, I think, did a really good job of pointing out, the Air Force took a very focused and long-term approach on this program. They funded us for a number of years in advance of the bids, so we were able to mature our design.

But specifically to your question, during that time that we were working our design, it became really clear to us that affordability would be absolutely critical. And we focused our efforts on a couple of things that I think are important to point out. First, obviously on the direct program, it was so important to create a design from the beginning that would be inherently more affordable to build than some other previous programs had been. And secondly, we had to work really hard to bring down our indirect rates, the overhead in the company, including efforts that we've had underway, like reducing the pension burden of cash and our rate structure.

So, when we looked at all of that, we also elected to make some corporate investments to enable those affordability efforts. So we were able to bid the program with a very mature design and a disciplined approach that connected returns to investments and really drove on affordability. So it gave us a lot of confidence in our ability to go and execute on the program. And in that particular case I have to say, I have to also give a lot of credit to our customer who has been working really hard to ensure the stability requirements and funding that we all know are two of the critical ingredients for success, in addition to contractor performance.

So there are a lot of things that have to come together to create that environment where affordability really sticks. And for us, it has been just a drumbeat within the company for some period of time. And as I said in my prepared remarks, I'm just really, really gratified, and I know our team around the organization is gratified, to see those efforts paying off for us. They're enabling us to bid competitively, they're enabling us to put forward new ideas about how our customer can do things a bit differently and more affordably. And I think that that is an activity that is really going to serve our customers well for the long term, and of course will serve our shareholders well, because when we are able to capture these programs and execute on them, that's how we build value.

So we see it as a part of the core engine. And this new environment that – and Doug made reference to it earlier – where our customers are facing such an intensity around the budget, we simply have to be much more affordable. And it's a core part of our thought process, a core part of our strategy in the company. So I appreciate the question on it.
Click to expand...
 
Black Dog said:
marauder2048 said:
My first impression at reading the redacted program to which Boeing was referring was that there is an unacknowledged B-2 derivative out there.
Click to expand...

Which part are you referring to?
Click to expand...

My thinking was along the lines of the notional RB-2 that was brought up in Congressional hearings about 25 years ago now.
 

Attachments

  • deleted-program(1).png
    deleted-program(1).png
    195.3 KB · Views: 932
Don't know this rag... I'm guessing it's not worth the click from folks here.

Article originally credited to Russian web site crediting PRC's "Modern National Defense and Safety Research Center (MNDSRC)". Lot's of speculation about Raider features. Typically I haven't seen this much detail when speculating about B-21 - other than here of course.

I can't find any reference to the MNDSRC. I'm guessing this is fake news. Just expecting someone will confirm.

FYI... I didn't get any website malware warnings but I'm not on a Windows operating system.

 
NeilChapman said:
Don't know this rag... I'm guessing it's not worth the click from folks here.

Article originally credited to Russian web site crediting PRC's "Modern National Defense and Safety Research Center (MNDSRC)". Lot's of speculation about Raider features. Typically I haven't seen this much detail when speculating about B-21 - other than here of course.

I can't find any reference to the MNDSRC. I'm guessing this is fake news. Just expecting someone will confirm.

FYI... I didn't get any website malware warnings but I'm not on a Windows operating system.

https://southfront.org/chinese-searching-for-flaws-in-american-bomber-under-development/
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wouldn't take this too seriously if at all...
They call the F-118 the same engine used on F-22 for god's sake.

I mean, I'm sure China is seriously researching and following development of B-21 and tailoring their own countermeasures to it, but I wouldn't take second hand Russian sources about supposed Chinese statements very seriously at all.
 
Blitzo said:
NeilChapman said:
Don't know this rag... I'm guessing it's not worth the click from folks here.

Article originally credited to Russian web site crediting PRC's "Modern National Defense and Safety Research Center (MNDSRC)". Lot's of speculation about Raider features. Typically I haven't seen this much detail when speculating about B-21 - other than here of course.

I can't find any reference to the MNDSRC. I'm guessing this is fake news. Just expecting someone will confirm.

FYI... I didn't get any website malware warnings but I'm not on a Windows operating system.

https://southfront.org/chinese-searching-for-flaws-in-american-bomber-under-development/
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wouldn't take this too seriously if at all...
They call the F-118 the same engine used on F-22 for god's sake.

I mean, I'm sure China is seriously researching and following development of B-21 and tailoring their own countermeasures to it, but I wouldn't take second hand Russian sources about supposed Chinese statements very seriously at all.
Click to expand...


:-\

No - The article indicates the F135 engine. At least bash the article as written. ;)
 
NeilChapman said:
:-\

No - The article indicates the F135 engine. At least bash the article as written. ;)
Click to expand...

Err.

According to MNDSRC analysts, at first the B-21 project called for the use of four F-118 GE-100 engines (also used on the F-22). However, for simplicity and to increase the reliability of the fuel system, two F-135 PW-400 engines were chosen. They will deliver a sustained maximum speed of Mach 0.85 – 0.95 and the ability to go to Mach 1.5 for up to 30 minutes.
Click to expand...
 
Blitzo said:
NeilChapman said:
:-\

No - The article indicates the F135 engine. At least bash the article as written. ;)
Click to expand...

Err.

According to MNDSRC analysts, at first the B-21 project called for the use of four F-118 GE-100 engines (also used on the F-22). However, for simplicity and to increase the reliability of the fuel system, two F-135 PW-400 engines were chosen. They will deliver a sustained maximum speed of Mach 0.85 – 0.95 and the ability to go to Mach 1.5 for up to 30 minutes.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Hey brother, read the next sentence.
 
NeilChapman said:
Blitzo said:
NeilChapman said:
:-\

No - The article indicates the F135 engine. At least bash the article as written. ;)
Click to expand...

Err.

According to MNDSRC analysts, at first the B-21 project called for the use of four F-118 GE-100 engines (also used on the F-22). However, for simplicity and to increase the reliability of the fuel system, two F-135 PW-400 engines were chosen. They will deliver a sustained maximum speed of Mach 0.85 – 0.95 and the ability to go to Mach 1.5 for up to 30 minutes.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Hey brother, read the next sentence.
Click to expand...

Read my original comment please -- I said "They call the F-118 the same engine used on F-22 for god's sake."

It seems you don't understand why I point that out as a way of criticizing the article -- I criticize it because they are mixing up the F-118 with the F-119 (which is the engine used on F-22 of course), which is something I would imagine an official research centre would hopefully be aware of.

Obviously the B-21 is using F-135 engines and not F-118s (and note my original comment didn't make any statement about the B-21's actual engines because the article technically got that part correct), but that doesn't change the fact that the article confused the F-118 with the F-119.

Unless you think confusing the F-118 with the F-119 is somehow a forgiveable mistake?
 
Blitzo said:
NeilChapman said:
Blitzo said:
NeilChapman said:
:-\

No - The article indicates the F135 engine. At least bash the article as written. ;)
Click to expand...

Err.

According to MNDSRC analysts, at first the B-21 project called for the use of four F-118 GE-100 engines (also used on the F-22). However, for simplicity and to increase the reliability of the fuel system, two F-135 PW-400 engines were chosen. They will deliver a sustained maximum speed of Mach 0.85 – 0.95 and the ability to go to Mach 1.5 for up to 30 minutes.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Hey brother, read the next sentence.
Click to expand...

Read my original comment please -- I said "They call the F-118 the same engine used on F-22 for god's sake."

It seems you don't understand why I point that out as a way of criticizing the article -- I criticize it because they are mixing up the F-118 with the F-119 (which is the engine used on F-22 of course), which is something I would imagine an official research centre would hopefully be aware of.

Obviously the B-21 is using F-135 engines and not F-118s (and note my original comment didn't make any statement about the B-21's actual engines because the article technically got that part correct), but that doesn't change the fact that the article confused the F-118 with the F-119.

Unless you think confusing the F-118 with the F-119 is somehow a forgiveable mistake?
Click to expand...

Yep - I completely blew past that. Somtimes people read rght past crtain errrs.

When I first read your comment I read: "They call for the F-119 the same engine used on the F-22..." and thought, Blitzo completely missed the F135 reference in the next sentence!

Too funny! Thanks!

;)
 
NeilChapman said:
Yep - I completely blew past that. Somtimes people read rght past crtain errrs.

When I first read your comment I read: "They call for the F-119 the same engine used on the F-22..." and thought, Blitzo completely missed the F135 reference in the next sentence!

Too funny! Thanks!

;)
Click to expand...

No problem, it was a subtle mistake on their part, easy to misread..
 
breakingdefense.com

Long-Range Strike: 'More Potent,' More Survivable & Cheaper - Breaking Defense

On January 19, the Air Force struck Libya to halt terrorist activity using B-2 stealth bombers. This was not the first strike against Libya. A mix of U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy fighters conducted strikes 30 years ago against Libya in response to terrorist acts in Europe. A comparison of the...
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 

Attachments

  • C4US_0AVUAEdXW9.jpg large.jpeg
    C4US_0AVUAEdXW9.jpg large.jpeg
    273.2 KB · Views: 341
There is a logic to this as the B-21 would be part of a existing production run plus it would more survivable than a converted civil aircraft.
 
Flyaway said:
There is a logic to this as the B-21 would be part of a existing production run plus it would more survivable than a converted civil aircraft.
Click to expand...
Where did you see logic? Do you realise number of staff that should accompany POTUS in flight? Gonna put them in weapons bay? And 747-8 is out of production or what?
AWST starting to look like mix of what-if modelling forum and devianart this time. Would be so-so joke on Fools' Day, but it's still winter around.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom