More LRS-B speculation

If you remember LM and Boeing work together since the NGB and now cancelled Balckswift demonstrator.
I don't know why this two company don't go alone each like Northrop ?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Isn't that assuming they win the bomber bid?

a reply to: aholic

No.

originally posted by: darksidius
If you remember LM and Boeing work together since the NGB and now cancelled Balckswift demonstrator.
I don't know why this two company don't go alone each like Northrop ?

Because going in together on a DoD venture reduces risks of loss. Particularly when the USAF leadership is a constantly revolving door of brass that wants to make a name for themselves by impacting big profile programs. However, every time they make a change in the scope of such a project the cost of research, development and implementation of the eventual demo model increases dramatically.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I don't see how their aircraft division can remain open if they don't win the bid. Other than the two experimental programs most of us here are aware of they won't have anything to work on. And those two programs are basically said for at this point. No new airframes being built or plans to.

They'll be no shortage of other work for them in non-flying areas sure, but reopening an entire devision of folks who've left is next to impossible. You simply don't do that. I know, my grandfather worked for Fairchild during the end.

a reply to: aholic

Japan has four Global Hawks on order, the Triton program has aircraft orders coming soon, they have numerous systems on order for aircraft, they're building all the F-35 center fuselage sections, they have a five year Global Hawk upgrade/maintenance contract for the AF....

Those are open source contracts.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It's the design & dev folks I'm worried about. Building the center section the the F-35 and selling Global Hawks to NATO and Japan isn't exactly development.

A little UCLASS love from the hill might fix that however.

a reply to: aholic

The development guys are already working on sixth gen stuff. They'll have sensor testing and lots of subsystem testing to do before a body design is settled on.

I doubt UCLASS is ever going to be bid on.

a reply to: Zaphod58

...I doubt it's ever going to be a reality if congress doesn't get the kind of oversight they'd like.

Either way, this is going to be a major shake up and a great possibility one of these companies isn't going to make it out of this unscathed.

a reply to: aholic

The Navy ruined the UCLASS program and turned it into a joke.

They aren't going to let a company die. They realized after allowing Lockheed to buy Sikorsky that the industry is getting way too consolidated.

a reply to: Zaphod58

They as in the Air Force? Congress? DoD?

I really hope you're right my pal, I mean that honestly.

I for one was for the purchase of Sikorsky, UTC was a no-good holding company that didn't have the interests of the industry in mind. Lockheed has some very exciting plans for Sikorsky. My cousin works for a Sikorsky sub up in Buffalo and was thrilled by the acquisition.

a reply to: aholic

The Pentagon. The Lockheed/Sikorsky deal was a good one, and good for the industry, but that puts almost every major program through three companies.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Almost, yes.

But we still have, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Bell Helicopter, General Atomics et al. Textron might emerge big in the T-X race with their redesign. But only a couple of these firms actually build combat air craft and that's what I'm worried about with this current bid.

a reply to: aholic

Yes they're still out there, but largely sub systems and add ons to the big three.

Do you think the UCLASS will be shelved altogether and future ventures on the 6th Gen will be the path forward?I keep going back to the Xb47b as a tech demonstrator as it exceeded all hopes as a autonomous naval asset and for sure was used in operations as well.Why did the Navy suddenly change directions as they had a winning asset that if was put into production would have a real edge on competitors.Is it a case of the tech being not mature enough yet?

a reply to: Blackfinger

It never went on operations. I'm trying to figure out the best way to put this.

The Navy is fighting unmanned aircraft tooth and nail right now. They're so hard up for money for ship and aircraft maintenance that they don't want to let anything take away from that. If they were to ground all the aircraft that need major checks, it would take three years to catch up.

They took the UCLASS, that had set objectives and technology, and "refined" it to basically a Predator that would fly off a carrier.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Thank you..Sorry if it was a toughie question.Havent had my morning coffee yet and its nearly lunch..

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Blackfinger
The Navy is fighting unmanned aircraft tooth and nail right now. They're so hard up for money for ship and aircraft maintenance that they don't want to let anything take away from that. If they were to ground all the aircraft that need major checks, it would take three years to catch up.

This is a travesty brought on by partisan political deadlocks in congress.

They took the UCLASS, that had set objectives and technology, and "refined" it to basically a Predator that would fly off a carrier.

As much as I've always respected you Z, this is beyond an understatement. The predator is a Hellfire shooting, low-tech camel killing drone. The UCLASS & the Xb-47b is a sensory overloaded bomber. To me, there IS a difference. But your answer to "Blackfinger" is adequate for his question I guess.

a reply to: coldstar

Look at the last requirements for UCLASS. The range, payload, and survivability in an A2AD environment wasn't much better than a Predator. OK, survivability might be, but the requirements have been degraded so far that you could probably offer a Reaper with upgraded sensors and meet the current requirements.

Currently the focus is on the ISR capabilities, not the penetration or attack roles.