Register here

Author Topic: Northrop Grumman to Purchase Orbital ATK?  (Read 2194 times)

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1999
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Northrop Grumman to Purchase Orbital ATK?
« Reply #15 on: September 18, 2017, 02:08:51 pm »
Someone has to control it.  Doesn't sound like an "unfair" advantage. 

LM builds the F-35 but NG builds the center fuselage section and a great deal of electronics.  There's coordination between suppliers all over the place.  Look at the list of suppliers on B-21.

The comparisons to tactical systems and fixed/rotary-wing aircraft really aren't valid.

The difference is that OATK is pretty much the only supplier of strategic SRMs and
an ICBM/SLBM's cost (and to a large degree its performance) is largely dominated by the propulsion stack.

I find the timing slightly suspicious since this was announced just after the GAO protest period elapsed for the initial GBSD down-select.
 

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1645
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Northrop Grumman to Purchase Orbital ATK?
« Reply #16 on: September 19, 2017, 03:37:17 am »
Is this GBSD business any more objectionable than LM ending up being involved with Defiant and Valor?

One would think so since the the Defiant and Valor are demonstration systems that inform future vertical lift requirements and lead to that program years down the road. GBSD is an MDAP.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Flyaway

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1375
Re: Northrop Grumman to Purchase Orbital ATK?
« Reply #17 on: June 06, 2018, 12:42:05 pm »
Acquisition of Orbital ATK approved, company renamed Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems

Quote
Orbital ATK will become Northrop Grumman’s fourth business sector.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday announced it has cleared Northrop Grumman’s $7.8 billion purchase of defense and space contractor Orbital ATK.

Orbital ATK will become Northrop Grumman’s fourth business sector, named Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems. The other three are Aerospace Systems, Mission Systems and Technology Services. With the addition, Northrop Grumman’s sales for 2018 should reach $30 billion.

As a condition for the approval of the merger, the company will have to supply solid rocket motors “on a non-discriminatory basis under specified circumstances,” the FTC ruled.

http://spacenews.com/acquisition-of-orbital-atk-approved-company-renamed-northrop-grumman-innovation-systems/

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 765
Re: Northrop Grumman to Purchase Orbital ATK?
« Reply #18 on: June 06, 2018, 10:12:20 pm »
The rebranding is pretty sad, two historic names just went zap. Say what you will about Lockheed, they kept the Sikorsky name around.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10561
Re: Northrop Grumman to Purchase Orbital ATK?
« Reply #19 on: June 07, 2018, 03:42:19 am »
The rebranding is pretty sad, two historic names just went zap. Say what you will about Lockheed, they kept the Sikorsky name around.

Thiokol and Hercules left when ATK became a thing.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Flyaway

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1375
Re: Northrop Grumman to Purchase Orbital ATK?
« Reply #20 on: June 07, 2018, 10:14:14 am »
Orbital ATK - The Partner You Can Count On

Northrop Grumman
Published on Jun 6, 2018

Originally published on Feb 9, 2015

Welcome to the new Orbital ATK. This video provides a glimpse into the products and services that our company offers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6gm3BbLby0?t=001


Online bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8264
Re: Northrop Grumman to Purchase Orbital ATK?
« Reply #21 on: June 29, 2018, 04:46:48 pm »
http://spacenews.com/in-the-wake-of-northrop-orbital-merger-aerojets-solid-rocket-engine-business-teetering-on-the-brink/

Quote
During the Cold War, the Pentagon bought enough solid rocket motors for intercontinental ballistic missiles to support seven suppliers. The demand for solid motors collapsed in the 1990s and dropped even further after NASA retired the space shuttle.

There are now technically two companies that still manufacture large solid rockets for military ICBMs — Aerojet Rocketdyne and Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems, which absorbed Orbital ATK in a deal that closed June 6. The industry is poised to become a monopoly, however, as Aerojet’s large solid rocket motor business is on not-so-solid ground.

While both companies have healthy production lines for solid rockets for tactical missiles, unless Aerojet gets new orders, Northrop could end up as the Pentagon’s sole supplier of large solid rocket motors — generally defined as those greater than 1 meter in diameter.

The Pentagon flagged this issue as a concern in its 2017 Annual Industrial Capabilities report to Congress. “In the very near future all the large SRMs for strategic missiles and space launch will be produced by Orbital ATK,” the report said. Among those large motors are the space shuttle-derived solid rocket boosters that will now be built under Northrop for NASA’s Space Launch System heavy-lift rocket.

Just a sad state of affairs. I'm a 'free market' guy but with strategically important industries like SRM I'd choose to support either through second/third stage business or robust advanced prototyping (although the latter might not be enough)
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1134
Re: Northrop Grumman to Purchase Orbital ATK?
« Reply #22 on: July 10, 2018, 09:11:56 am »
Some new Northrop ads which probably feature Orbital ATK activities.

1:22-1:33 mark appears to be hypersonic related




This shows "lethality enhanced" warheads which generate a lot more fragmentation.  I wonder why they can't use insensitive munitions packed into cluster bomblets instead.


Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2587
Re: Northrop Grumman to Purchase Orbital ATK?
« Reply #23 on: July 10, 2018, 09:35:21 am »
This shows "lethality enhanced" warheads which generate a lot more fragmentation.  I wonder why they can't use insensitive munitions packed into cluster bomblets instead.

I thought the reasoning was pretty clear -- eliminating unexploded ordnance.  Even with modern fuzing, cluster munitions almost always leave unexploded bomblets behind.  If you can achieve the same effect without the UXO hazard, why not do it?

Also, LEO technology is applicable to small warheads, too small for submunitions to be used (Switchblade and Hatchet, for example).

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1134
Re: Northrop Grumman to Purchase Orbital ATK?
« Reply #24 on: July 10, 2018, 11:04:23 am »

I thought the reasoning was pretty clear -- eliminating unexploded ordnance.  Even with modern fuzing, cluster munitions almost always leave unexploded bomblets behind.  If you can achieve the same effect without the UXO hazard, why not do it?

Also, LEO technology is applicable to small warheads, too small for submunitions to be used (Switchblade and Hatchet, for example).

With IM explosives you have de facto UXO since it takes so much effort to detonate it.  I'm not sure about your other point.  It looked like IM can scale from small to large and cluster bomblets are probably not too different in size versus what is packed into Switchblade.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2587
Re: Northrop Grumman to Purchase Orbital ATK?
« Reply #25 on: July 10, 2018, 12:10:35 pm »
IM does not fully (or even largely) address the UXO issue.  IM only affects whether a warhead goes off due to impacts, fire, etc.  UXO can be caused by a faulty fuze that does not function on impact but does function later on handling. If the fuze actually functions, it's not going to care whether the explosive material is insensitive or not.   

My other point is that you can't use submunitions to enhance area effectiveness when you have a very small warhead in the first place.  There are scale issues at play -- each submunition needs a fuze, a casing, and some sort of dispersal mechanism, all of which eats into the available weight and volume for actual explosive material and fragments. A half-pound submunition warhead (with two or three submunitions?) is likely to be less lethal than a half-pound unitary warhead with enhanced fragmentation.


Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1134
Re: Northrop Grumman to Purchase Orbital ATK?
« Reply #26 on: July 10, 2018, 12:43:16 pm »
Percentage wise I am guessing that deaths/injuries from UXO are mainly due to explosives set off by mishandling (pressure, heat, etc).  A fail safe fuze on an IM explosive would require some serious/deliberate mistreatment to go off.  I thought the principal  issue for the ban on cluster bombs was duds being picked up by children.

As for a point detonation/spread of a fragmentation bomb versus a distributed pattern of bomblets, my eyeballs keep being more impressed by the latter.


Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2587
Re: Northrop Grumman to Purchase Orbital ATK?
« Reply #27 on: July 10, 2018, 12:54:52 pm »
Percentage wise I am guessing that deaths/injuries from UXO are mainly due to explosives set off by mishandling (pressure, heat, etc).  A fail safe fuze on an IM explosive would require some serious/deliberate mistreatment to go off.  I thought the principal  issue for the ban on cluster bombs was duds being picked up by children.

And yet, that's exactly what was happening to those kids -- submunitions that should have safed themselves when the failed to function as designed, didn't reliably fail safe. No idea the percentages, but some significant fraction of UXO that subsequently functions is due to fuzes that didn't function as intended but later do.

Reuse is another one to worry about -- we see submunitions being recycled into operational weapons in Syria and Iraq, for example.  (Not clear if they are dismantling rockets or collecting and reworking duds).  We also see UXO cracked open and the explosive melted or scooped out for use in IEDs.  Dangerous as all get out, but it is done.


Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1134
Re: Northrop Grumman to Purchase Orbital ATK?
« Reply #28 on: July 10, 2018, 03:22:57 pm »

And yet, that's exactly what was happening to those kids -- submunitions that should have safed themselves when the failed to function as designed, didn't reliably fail safe. No idea the percentages, but some significant fraction of UXO that subsequently functions is due to fuzes that didn't function as intended but later do.

Reuse is another one to worry about -- we see submunitions being recycled into operational weapons in Syria and Iraq, for example.  (Not clear if they are dismantling rockets or collecting and reworking duds).  We also see UXO cracked open and the explosive melted or scooped out for use in IEDs.  Dangerous as all get out, but it is done.

I'm going to have the see the stats on that.  It sounds a lot like unintended acceleration when the car takes off on its own and then miraculously fixes itself after the crash so you can't tell.

I wasn't aware anyone incorporated fail safe fuzes.  It would make for a short EOD movie where the hero simply opens a panel and flips a switch.  Seems something simple like a physical short circuit or even a tiny squib charge to cut wires would be permanent.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1999
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Northrop Grumman to Purchase Orbital ATK?
« Reply #29 on: July 11, 2018, 03:20:08 pm »
With IM explosives you have de facto UXO since it takes so much effort to detonate it.  I'm not sure about your other point.  It looked like IM can scale from small to large and cluster bomblets are probably not too different in size versus what is packed into Switchblade.

Increasingly, the fuzes themselves have to be IM-compliant which tends to add to weight and volume (you may need a supplemental charge to get
the main IM-fill to detonate) which would probably be a challenge to integrate on something as small as a BLU-97 which
makes Hatchet look big.