It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

More LRS-B speculation

page: 12
4
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: aholic

I wouldn't be surprised if NG get a big chunk of the bomber to build and as Zaph mentioned they've got some "other" stuff going on.




posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

Yep in systems and parts manufacture its a good way to make a buck..



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   
There's word they may see an R&D fund cut again if this drags out too long. The plan is to have the review board this month, with a fairly quick decision, then the award.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
It's confirmed by a lawmaker that every month delayed, they lose up to $100M from the FY16 budget.
edit on 10/9/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

Why not just build both planes, even if the loser had say a limited 10 plane run, if boith are good, build them both.

Same with F-22/23, should have and probably did build the 23 in limited #s, and might be the F-117 companion.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

It would cost too much per airframe if they did that. The lower the production run, the higher the overall cost would be. The Air Force would have to pay way more for both if they got jets from each company.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

Had it been me in charge back in the early 90s, I'd have given Lockheed the NATF contract and made the Navy keep it. That would have produced around 300 fighters. The USAF would have been given the F-23. Based on history, we'd have ended up with another 200 fighters. That'd have preserved the industrial base better than we did. MacDAC would have survived independently then, too, assuming they had the FA/-18E/F still.

I suspect part of the reason the US Navy pulled out of the NATF was because that generation of stealth materials might have been a nightmare to maintain at sea. The other being cost, of course.

(and for gawd's sake do NOT give NG/MD the NATF contract...that plane was a sin against the eyes!)



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580


That was announced last month. They aligned all the bombers under one command, as they all fall under the Global Strike heading.



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 03:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Honestly, I think the T-X would be a great foundation to keep the Hornet line hot and running. Build us a 4+++ gen Hornet, rename it to a different bug, give it HMD and turn it into a supersonic trainer. They already have ownership of the Goshawk which will need replacing soon enough. That will free up the room to create an F/A-XX with NG and LM at it again.

But again I know I'm wrong in my assumption and unless there's a breakthrough within a couple of weeks, NG will be striped of it's prime and delegated as sub.
edit on 10-10-2015 by aholic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 03:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

Well I hope you can name these programs because non of them are combat airframes and won't keep them alive long enough to see another major fly off. It would spell the end for their aircraft building days. I hope I'm wrong.



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: aholic

And according to the Air Force and Northrop they will have enough work to keep them going until the F-XX/F/A-XX program. If they wouldn't survive until then they wouldn't currently be sinking all they are into getting ready for it.



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   
I hope NG win the contract - love the designs they produce, so innovative, the YF-23 was way ahead of it's time. Seems politics so often get in the way in the US. Surely it's got to be in the US Government's interest to spread the work around anyway, not good to have one dominant supplier in LM? There is no leverage if that happens.



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: JEKS1979

LM won't be the only supplier here. Boeing will do the assembly at their facilities.



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm tellin' ya, the reason for the delay is them hammering out the details for all the candidates to win!

Not really, but it would be pretty nice. And I like to hope for the most positive outcome.



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah I guess and hope so - just that LM and Boeing appear to be 'best buddies' anyway so they don't mind sharing the work as they are pretty much in bed together, just thinking that LM and NG are fierce rivals and by choice would not work together, so would be a crying shame if NG lost it and they decide to withdraw from making airframes altogether - I guess with that fierce rivalry they push each other along, that may disappear which would be a shame.

In hindsight I also recognise that I am being a bit hypocritical with my original statement - I am from the UK and we have one totally dominant supplier in BAE systems but then again we don't spend enough on defence to warrant more than one supplier! At least you in the USA have a choice...



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: JEKS1979

Howdy! I see you joined awhile ago, but just started posting today. From the few so far looks like you've got some excellent insight and things to share. Looking forward to hearing more.


If you have any questions, feel free to send me a message or one to the staff in general.

You can also check out the Board Business & Questions and ATS Freshman forums for more information. And you can always make an introduction and let us know more about yourself.

Welcome aboard!

edit on 10/10/2015 by cmdrkeenkid because: Fixing broken link.



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: JEKS1979

Actually Lockheed and Northrop work together all the time. Northrop makes the center fuselage for the F-35 at Palmdale, before shipping them to assembly at Fort Worth, now Italy, and soon Japan. In fact they just rolled out the first Japan center fuselage for their FACO.



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: JEKS1979

LM and Boeing aren't exactly the best of buddies. Both companies are going to do what is in the best interests for themselves and have competed against each other on a number of big projects. The two companies were teamed up and had a nasty split IIRC on the NGB program before it's cancellation.
edit on 10-10-2015 by Sammamishman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

Aircraft makers have had to adapt for some time to a world that car makers are learn to adjust to: increased development costs, the prospects of greater competition and uncertain demand outlook (especially since they have to bet on demand on 25+ year time horizons, vs car makers who usually have 5-8 years per model cycle). All of these guys compete yet cooperate: Toyota and BMW are sharing technology for a new generation sports car, Toyota and Subaru have jointly developed a near identical car (Subaru BRZ and Toyota GT86). Boeing, NG, LM all help each other out when its in their mutual interests, otherwise they compete. Same thing with airline code sharing and container shipping alliances operating what they call "conferences".




top topics



 
4
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join