Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
There have been others, usually they swing it by citing critical capabilities which the program needs. Occasionally it ends up with a situation like FVL where one of the competitors gets bought out during the years-long process. Here they might simply point out that Phantom Works is the lead on their bid but isn't involved in the GA bid.

I'm trying to think of some on the (POR) scale of MQ-25...

The typical argument that I've seen against such arrangements is that it might discourage a prime
from submitting a high quality bid since the margins are more often than not better as a partner
and for a fixed-price EMD you are (potentially) more insulated from overruns.

2
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by Colonial-Marine on Today at 08:59:33 pm »
Wasn't it supposed to be a DARPA funded program? IMO the Navy needs to develop a High and Low end NGLAW strategy with the higher end focusing on Hypersonic demonstrations that are expected over the next few years while the lower end focuses on more of the TLAM role of relatively cheap, mass produced cruise missile..
I think you are right about it being a DARPA funded program. I'd also like to eventually see a mix of hypersonic missiles and a cheaper TLAM successor incorporating LO features similar to what you see on JASSM. Yet until the hypersonic designs are ready I think a supersonic design like LRASM-B would be a very good capability to have.
3
The loss of Blue's best maritime strike aircraft in an era where the Navy doesn't appear
to be taking air-launched ASuW very seriously (limited LRASM buy, OASuW Inc II punted indefinitely) is a big issue.
I agree that the Navy's efforts seem half-hearted at best, what was OASuW Inc II supposed to be exactly?
4
Does anyone know where i might find information on the wingfold mechanism envisioned for shipborne use? I know the wing was supposed to be pivoted in the upright position, and then a chordwise hinge was used to fold the wings alongside the fuselage.
I am curious to find out how they planned to disconnect the driveshafts running from the centerline three-way gearbox to the inboard engines.
Is there anything useful in this regard in the Ginter book on the XC-142? Thanks!
5
That doesn't seem all that different than the ATF losers (McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics) teaming up with Northrop and Lockheed respectively.  Granted, they were in different phases of the program.

I think the final source selection phase is the important distinction.

I could swear I've seen others where companies had their hands in multiple pies.
There have been others, usually they swing it by citing critical capabilities which the program needs. Occasionally it ends up with a situation like FVL where one of the competitors gets bought out during the years-long process. Here they might simply point out that Phantom Works is the lead on their bid but isn't involved in the GA bid.
6
Aerospace / Re: A-X all over again - USAF pushes for A-10 replacement
« Last post by Triton on Today at 07:05:15 pm »
"A light attack aircraft fleet: Could it change the fight or put lives at risk?"
by: Stephen Losey

Source:
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/02/20/a-light-attack-aircraft-fleet-could-it-change-the-fight-or-put-lives-at-risk/
9
Aerospace / Re: Chengdu J-20 news, pictures, analysis Part III
« Last post by PaulMM (Overscan) on Today at 05:13:23 pm »
The article was from 2013 - cut it some slack :)
10
That doesn't seem all that different than the ATF losers (McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics) teaming up with Northrop and Lockheed respectively.  Granted, they were in different phases of the program.

I think the final source selection phase is the important distinction.

I could swear I've seen others where companies had their hands in multiple pies. 
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10