Northrop Grumman announces fighter bid

a reply to: boomer135

We should. But with the budget issues ongoing, and everything else they need I wouldn't be surprised if it's slipped.

a reply to: aholic

Maybe not a new companion.....but how about the old one with a shiny new midlife update? Would explain why it was still confirmed flying as of last year.

There's a Morena Baccarin reference in here somewhere.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

I thought that at first but watch again and look close at how the leading edge of the wings changes angle where as the drone`s do not. There is also a link to another article about why the commercial was aired during the superbowl that was an interesting read. Then remember what has been said about the NG aircraft having some mis-haps on ATS so he may have a point. Read through the comments too, you may recognize a writing style or two.

originally posted by: aholic
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Sure thing!

You got the - 180. The other one dates back a bit. But has gotten some very promising funding this week that should see it as an integral part of warfare to come.

That ones not going to be a single-seater is it? If its for the mission I`m thinking it is then a second person would be the preferred configuration. Unless the person is not a human, that would be wild.

originally posted by: justwanttofly

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Bedlam
The BUFF will fly another 25 years if not longer.

Especially with all the new stuff they're putting in it.

When you say Buff, you're taking about the B-52 right?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: justwanttofly

There are.....interesting rumors about them floating around.

I have always loved the B-one, any hints at what these rumors might be?

When I saw it was about Northrop, I thought about the F-5. People remember the B-2 when they think of Northrop, but I recall the F-5, which was the most practical idea from this company. Who knows if they could go back to that design, bring it further forward and make a new lightweight or low-cost (yeah, I know how funny that sounds) semi-stealth fighter or something. My country, the Philippines had the F-5, and I realize it's a great aircraft.

I don't see why they couldn't just fix up the B1 by giving it a new set of efficient engines and a new set of electronics, sensors, radars, "whatever" you throw on the inside. May be a bit much to try and stealth the thing out or give it a new skins but at least give it one of those sweet candy paint jobs that change color.

Can engines using advent tech be made big enough for something like the bone's needs?

That would make a sweet workhorse of a bomber.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

HEy dont forget the lift kit,NOS and carbon fiber body parts

a reply to: BASSPLYR

You've probably got to consider the age of the airframe itself. The stress from flying causes structural weakness and failure of parts. Just adding new gadgets and engines can't keep a plane flying forever...

a reply to: yuppa

Please tell me they make neon lights for the wheel wells and under carriage. That would be gangster. Oh and of course we need to replace all of the landing lights with the blinding xenon ones. Are pilots allowed to hang fuzzy dice in the cockpit?

a reply to: BASSPLYR

best ask snoop dogg about that! he's got them hydraulics on his plane

a reply to: BASSPLYR

I have a similar belief about the F-14.....

With the exception of avionics, it seems like we are stuck in the 60's as far as fighter jet designs go.

The Navy is still getting 'new' F-18's......even though a good argument can be made that the F-14 is a more capable bird.

Obviously Boeing does a much better job at lobbying for Gov't contracts than Northrop-Grumman.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: boomer135

We should. But with the budget issues ongoing, and everything else they need I wouldn't be surprised if it's slipped.

I'm under this impression as well. I'm positive the LRS-B will be used as a lever to push the 2037 project even further back. Assuming we get all 100 frames.

They probably won't make the same mistake as the Raptor and Spirit but if this project is too cut short (depends on 2016 election) we could be seeing a revamp even before the 30's.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: yuppa

Please tell me they make neon lights for the wheel wells and under carriage. That would be gangster. Oh and of course we need to replace all of the landing lights with the blinding xenon ones. Are pilots allowed to hang fuzzy dice in the cockpit?

COuld you imagine the chewing out you would get for doing that to a stealth bomber? Talk about the danger zone!

a reply to: BASSPLYR

They're reaching the point where they're going to start to see structural problems due to low level flights. Upgrading at least some would be too expensive.

a reply to: aholic

They just announced the J-STARS replacement is pushed back to 2023, and the first seven AWACS scheduled for retirement in 2016 is pushed to 2019.

a reply to: Zaphod58

J-STARS sounds like a boy band that Simon Cowel put together on the "X-Factor".

Is a radical overhaul of the AWACS platform due (ie; new plane)?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

The E-3 is a 707 platform, still using TF33 engines. Like the others based on that platform they're getting long in the tooth and expensive to maintain.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I wonder if the ISR duties after 2019 might be shifted gradually to unmanned platforms? I suppose any decision is limited by what the rest of NATO is willing and can afford to do.