Northrop Grumman hinting at disclosure, amongst other things

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: NTellect

I saw this same commercial this evening. I thought it was quite strange. Normally companies spend money on tv commercials to advertise a product, so they can make more money from the public when that same product is purchased in greater numbers. Northrop Grumman doesn't sell anything to the public, they sell products to the government. So why are they advertising to the public? Seems strange to me. It's not like they are saying "we're hiring", either.

You make an interesting point.Why advertise to the public when the government is their customer.I grew up less than I mile from the original Grumman headquarters in Bethpage,N.Y.until the 90's.My grandfather and grandmother both worked there during WWII producing the Hellcat fighters.As far as I knew until their merger/relocation with Northrop,the government was their only customer.

a reply to: TDawg61

Because if enough people know about it abs write their Congress Critters they have a better shot at an appeal with the GAO when they lose.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I just wanted to point out that the flying-wing concept goes way back, same as stealth.
So... no need for "Aliens" here, and I don't see how this is "hinting at disclosure" as the OP says.

Still, I think there is no denying that German engineering had a vast influence on U.S. military superiority post WWII.
But yes, I did realize that Northrop built the N-1M, although it wasn't a jet-fighter, nor was it really that successful, right?

a reply to: Zaphod58

I bow to your expertise on the subject but cost over runs come in a variety of flavors usually wanting more and more from one platform as technology evolves. Chances are the thing has already been built for 20 or more and flying for over 10. Will be fun to watch it come to pass however !

a reply to: ColCurious

No it wasn't a jet. The first turbojet flew in 1939, and the first recognized jet aircraft flew in 1940. The N-1M was already in testing at that time. The US was behind in jet engine design.

As for the N-1 it got off to a bad start, but some minor modifications led to improved stability. The biggest problem was that it was underpowered. The N-1 led to the N-9, which was a tech demonstrator for the YB-35.

a reply to: DJMSN

Major contracts like this one are changing to fixed price, with a small allowance for overrun. After that, any overrun comes out of company coffers. There's even talk the next Ford Class aircraft carrier will be fixed price.

Hasn't been flying that long, but everything I've heard about it is amazing. And it's supposed to look amazing. I can't wait to see it later this year.

You do realize that's the aircraft's "wake" breaking the clouds, right? I've seen the same thing jumping out the back of perfectly good aircraft enough times to know that that's what it is....

Disclosure? Nah.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: DJMSN

Major contracts like this one are changing to fixed price, with a small allowance for overrun. After that, any overrun comes out of company coffers. There's even talk the next Ford Class aircraft carrier will be fixed price.

Hasn't been flying that long, but everything I've heard about it is amazing. And it's supposed to look amazing. I can't wait to see it later this year.

Yeah. I see this as a mixed blessing type of thing.

"Cost overruns" are oftentimes unforseeable and something that we'd want to pay for. I.e. a tech advance not available when the original platform was proposed.

I think there should be a (large) buffer in proposed and final cost.

We would have never had the M1 Abrams otherwise

a reply to: 35Foxtrot

There needs to be some allowance for overruns, but they need to get spending under control. We can't have more programs that start out at $55M per airframe, and end up at $110M or more per airframe.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Major contracts like this one are changing to fixed price

Why is that? An outraged and more informed public? I would have thought this type of thing was blank check, I suppose everyone can learn though.

a reply to: Domo1

Sequestration. The only way to guarantee costs don't keep running out of control is to make the companies pay for overruns.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I think I phrased my question poorly, why now? I was under the impression (and actually don't know why) that not too long ago things got that blank check and this is a recent change in policy.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I know you're the quasi authority on ATS when it comes to aviation, and I'm not even a pilot...

So I had to look this up...

German Wiki-page says the Hortens concept was far superior to the UK's Baynes Bat, or the models of Northrop??
It also says Northrop had recurring problems with the flight stability of their models, until their engineers studied and integrated the Horten's concepts, which then lead to Northrop's XB-35 and YB-49.
What is your valued opinion on that?

a reply to: Domo1

Sequestration. It only went into effect a couple years ago. When the new tanker contract was awarded, it was a fixed price deal. That was the first one to be awarded.

a reply to: Zaphod58
That could pretty well kill a viable project though. Unless there are contract clauses which force the prime to absorb overruns (risky on the part of the contractor). It doesn't work in the construction business and it's hard to imagine it working in something that is, in the most part, R&D.

The usual approach would be to limit markups on overruns. Reduce opportunities for profiting on change orders. The prime doesn't eat the cost, but they don't benefit either.

a reply to: ColCurious

Not entirely true. The N-1 had stability issues at first. It had to be held at a specific angle of attack to be stable. But a slight change to the trailing edges of the elevons fixed that. First flight was accidental in July of 1941, and by November it had made 28 flights. That's when they found a Dutch Roll tendency and made another slight change to the trailing edge.

The 229 was an amazing piece of engineering, but so was the N-1. The N-9M was used to verify technology for the YB-35, and had some serious problems, almost all related to the engines.

I'm not going to take anything away from the Horton brothers, but I'm not going to take anything away from Jack Northrop either.

a reply to: Phage

There are quite a few allowances and incentives built into the contracts. It's geared to keep costs from doubling and tripling like they have in the past. It's working well for the first batch of KC-46s so far. They're the test for it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah I thought so. German Wikipedia can be a little... inaccurate at times.

Thanks for your input.

a reply to: Phage

Well the Air Force has a black budget to provide funding from as well and I am sure they will make use of some of it to not only absorb some cost over runs based on what they want as an end product but also to hide the extras from the bean counters...backroom deals can cover a lot of ground especially when its covered with a black budget.

No doubt however it is in the interest of everyone to keep the figure at least in the ball park of the advertised price but simply too many variables to cover all of those variables. Fixed contracts are bound to be for the GAO accounting only and the real price comes from maintenance and parts deals later down the line.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Phage

There are quite a few allowances and incentives built into the contracts. It's geared to keep costs from doubling and tripling like they have in the past. It's working well for the first batch of KC-46s so far. They're the test for it.

Fair enough. If that's the case. Not up on the air side of things.

Are you saying that the contractor can up the price if they can show the why/how of the overrun, but can't factor in their "cost?"

I guess I'm for that. That way real cost overruns that benefit the final product can happen but not the contractor's mark up...

Makes more sense to me now.