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

I don't expect that to be the route NG have gone as I full expect another flying wing from them when it rolls out the hanger.
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2016/January%202016/Launching-the-New-Bomber.aspx
Click to expand...
Interesting read. John A. Tirpak is very good at what he does! -SP
 
Any insight on how the GAO reports its findings? Is there a certain day of the week? Do they wait the entire 100 days? Does 100 days include weekends?

Any scuttlebutt?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Orphic said:
in this article http://breakingdefense.com/2016/01/the-terminator-conundrum-vcjcs-selva-on-thinking-weapons/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BreakingDefense+%28Breaking+Defense%29 at the bottom Gen. Paul Selrva is quoted as saying “in development we tolerated some very early failures” in the LRSB program.
Any clues to what that meant other than the couple of sightings of aircraft that have no known designation?
Click to expand...

I'm sure he is referring to all of the developmental testing they did, which means technology demonstrations, not just new airframes. I'm sure they flew many new systems on modified aircraft. Perhaps that's what some of those F-117 test flights we've seen over the past few years were for, among others.
 
Sundog said:
I'm sure he is referring to all of the developmental testing they did, which means technology demonstrations, not just new airframes. I'm sure they flew many new systems on modified aircraft. Perhaps that's what some of those F-117 test flights we've seen over the past few years were for, among others.
Click to expand...

Many things were tested in many different ways. Most of the technology being used is "new", but at very respectable TRL. The long years of various long range strike programs paid off - all that time there was risk reduction going on. It's better to fail early and learn from it than fail after investing significant resources.

That does not mean there were giant mystery airplanes flying around supporting LRS risk reduction.
Phantom Ray flew what, once that we know of?
Pegasus flew what, once that we know of?
 
http://receivingpayments.date/obama-8217-s-acquisition-leaders-head-for-the-doors-laquo-breaking-defense-defense-industry-news-analysis-and-commentary

Bill Laplante resigns as lead buyer for the Air Force. Any thoughts on how this affects LRS-B (or T-X).
 
NeilChapman said:
http://receivingpayments.date/obama-8217-s-acquisition-leaders-head-for-the-doors-laquo-breaking-defense-defense-industry-news-analysis-and-commentary

Bill Laplante resigns as lead buyer for the Air Force. Any thoughts on how this affects LRS-B (or T-X).
Click to expand...

This news is quite old now. He had communicated his decision to leave for industry around the middle of last year but was asked to stay till the LRS-B was awarded.

Seems odd - Bill Laplante should have stayed on to see things through.... SP
Click to expand...

He has already seen things through. The source selection is complete. The protest is out of the USAF's hands. If the protest is sustained, we go back through the process which could take months.
 
LRSB Classification

The Air Force is crafting a "security posture" for the Long-Range Strike Bomber program that will determine the appropriate classification levels for information related to the bomber's development. The service confirmed to Inside the Air Force this week that the review is ongoing and should be completed "within the next few months." Northrop Grumman was awarded the contract in October -- the Air Force has refused to disclose the initial contract value or reveal any of the subsystem suppliers -- and Lockheed Martin and Boeing, who teamed for the competition, immediately protested. A decision is expected from the Government Accountability Office next month.
 
After Protest, LRS-B Ramp-Up To Be Slow

—John A. Tirpak

1/29/2016

​Assuming the protest over the Long-Range Strike Bomber award goes Northrop Grumman’s​ way, the company expects “modest” sales money from the program in 2016, attending a “gradual, month-by-month increase” in employment on the project, company CEO and president Wes Bush said Thursday. Speaking during a conference call with reporters to discuss the company’s 2015 fourth-quarter results, Bush said the LRS-B “head count” in engineering will increase at a rate “appropriate for the start of this incentive-based program.” The Government Accountability Office is expected to decide within two weeks whether the LRS-B award to Northrop was, as Boeing argued in its protest, “fatally flawed.” Bush expressed confidence the protest would be resolved in Northrop’s favor and that the stop-work order would be lifted shortly thereafter. The program represents a “meaningful opportunity for the company over time,” he added. Northrop was selected to build the LRS-B by the Air Force in October, and Bush said the company remains heavily restricted in what it can say about the program. (For more on Northrop's fourth quarter earnings, click here.)
 
warisboring.com

The U.S. Air Force’s Dwindling Bomber Fleet

While the U.S. Air Force’s next-generation Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) contract is mired in protests, the service has to rely on an increasingly geriatric fleet of long-range strategic bombers to meet its global obligations. Only a tiny portion of the Air Force bomber fleet — some 20...
warisboring.com warisboring.com

200 to 300 LRS-B needed.
 
I think we need 500-600 at least - Just my opinion. Russia's not stupid. - SP
 
Steve Pace said:
I think we need 500-600 at least - Just my opinion. Russia's not stupid. - SP
Click to expand...

Perhaps with those quantities the costs would begin to become fathomable.

Right now we just need to get the damn thing started.

-

Speaking of costs, NG has stated, in general, "that 65 percent of the cost of an airplane was resident in the airframe and 65 percent of that cost was in assembly." At 550M per copy (I'm guessing that's sans engines?) that's 357.5M airframe and 232M assembly costs.

Is it logical to expect that learning rates will allow at least a 30% cost reduction in assembly over the 100 units?
 
The key to getting (and keeping) costs down is a defined, consistent, predictable schedule. Starting and stopping, or monkeying with budgets every year, is a surefire way to keep costs high. When companies can't depend on predictability they tend to plan for the worst. That means keeping understaffed, inadequately supplied teams, who they then work as hard as possible to not slip schedule. DOES. NOT. WORK.
 
sferrin said:
The key to getting (and keeping) costs down is a defined, consistent, predictable schedule. Starting and stopping, or monkeying with budgets every year, is a surefire way to keep costs high. When companies can't depend on predictability they tend to plan for the worst. That means keeping understaffed, inadequately supplied teams, who they then work as hard as possible to not slip schedule. DOES. NOT. WORK.
Click to expand...
Where's the like button?

And "realistic" would be a good adjective for the schedule, too.
 
Perhaps this has already been posted? Sorry if it's a repeat.

Best picture I've seen of "the shadow".
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2016-02-01 at 4.06.46 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2016-02-01 at 4.06.46 PM.png
    285.5 KB · Views: 317
...
 

Attachments

  • 10547155_10152409637820975_5741868572801495336_o.jpg
    10547155_10152409637820975_5741868572801495336_o.jpg
    115 KB · Views: 301
SteveO said:
I'm guessing it's a big Switchblade ;D
Click to expand...

"The shadow" looks much different than the early renderings we've seen or other cranked-kite designs. I didn't perceive such a long nose on the NG commercial either.

Very cool though!
 
I see their line of thinking now. If we went into a Worlds War, of course we'd need a Battle of the Planets Ship from Northrop. ; )

screenshot_16_16398.jpg
 
NeilChapman said:
SteveO said:
I'm guessing it's a big Switchblade ;D
Click to expand...

"The shadow" looks much different than the early renderings we've seen or other cranked-kite designs. I didn't perceive such a long nose on the NG commercial either.

Very cool though!
Click to expand...

I thought people were commenting on the big nose in the commercial?
 
They probably were. I just didn't catch it. It jumped out at me when I saw the more refined "shadow" picture.

You know - the more I type "the shadow" the more I like the idea of it being called "the shadow".
 
B-3 " shadow bomber", not easy to see on the superbowl commercial tease the real shape of the plane with just the face.
 
dark sidius said:
B-3 " shadow bomber", not easy to see on the superbowl commercial tease the real shape of the plane with just the face.
Click to expand...

Just reading that (B3 "Shadow Bomber") sent a tingle right down my leg.

Yes - I'm sardonically referencing Chris Matthews - but I do like it!
 
This video just turned up on the NG channel, wonder if that's a hint at the end they are expecting to win the protest over the bomber award. Notice their sixth generation fighter concept puts in an appearance.

https://youtu.be/sGzhmVmuSTA
 
This shadow on the floor...
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2016-02-06-12-53-35.png
    Screenshot_2016-02-06-12-53-35.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 216

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom