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: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   

One of the panelists, Robert Elder, a professor at George Mason University and a retired lieutenant general who previously commanded the 8th Air Force, said “100 bombers should be considered the minimum initial procurement quantity.” He pointed out that “substantially more aircraft will be needed” to replace the existing B-1 and B-52 fleets.

Read more: defensetech.org...
Defense.org


defensetech.org...




posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

Amen!



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: anzha

That's probably why the RCO got involved. They're good at keeping things quiet, and getting things done on time.

RCO got involved to reduce scope creep thereby keeping costs from going out the roof. With them involved the constant rotation of USAF stakeholders causing a constant changing of desired deliverables is mitigated. A very wise move. (imo)



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
The Dean of the Mitchell Institute, who was one of the key Desert Storm planners, says we need 174. Of those 120 would be combat coded, 24 test aircraft, and 30 replacements.

www.flightglobal.com...



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   
He speaks sense, from a procurement perspective a bow wave of spending definitely save costs, however, if I look at the difference between a tranche 1 Typhoon and a Tranche 3, I wouldn't want to have procured all the avionics and DASS in tranche 1.

What're rate is F-35 up to, does anyone know the rate these aircraft go out to their respective customers? Surely they will start to change the average age of the Air Force and the flow of cash which means the Air Force would have 2 programmes potentially delivering more aircraft than ever before, hence his comments on the fact the AF has bought less AC than ever in the last 2 years is the calm before the storm.

Also interested the B-52 can carry 50 x 500lb and the B1/2 80? What is the LRS-b expected payload in comparison?



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

Less than the B-2. More of a medium bomber than a heavy like those are.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Surgical strikes are the future now.I can see a whole heap of super accurate low yield ordnance being on the LRSB,s wishlist.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Here's Deptula's report on the bomber. Sorta. Warning, PDF.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Something odd is going on with the program. The chatter was pointing to an imminent decision, now sources are saying "within the next two months". Either something changed, or they're reevaluating things.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Something's happened. The general IC is saying could be two months.

Betcha its negotiations.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

I have a feeling someone noticed something in the test data and threw up a red flag.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That or the threat of the continuing resolution meant they didn't want to risk getting into the contract only to get stuck.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Yeah, that's already threatening several projects. It's going to screw the Pegasus program completely.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Trying to administer contracts or run a Contracting shop under continuing resolution is an effing nightmare, but it's been the status quo since I've been an 1102.

What am I doing on ATS??? I've been working 11 hour days and tomorrow is the last day of the fiscal year...

Interesting to speculate on this extra delay though...



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: SonOfThor

I'm really starting to think they set up contracts to fail deliberately after reading about the KC-46 contract in the event of a CR.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Who would that benefit though?



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Bfirez

The people that run the contracts that more often than not go on to high ranking positions in companies after they retire.

The KC-46 contract is fixed price, dependent upon purchase of 8 aircraft by a certain date. If they don't buy 8 aircraft they're in breach of contract. So of course LRIP 1 is for 7 aircraft. Under a CR, they are unable to purchase more aircraft without a congressional waiver allowing it.
edit on 9/30/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Zaphod58
a reply to: Bfirez

www.dodbuzz.com...

My guess is they need to concoct a way for Boeing LM to win. For what reason I don't know why. But it was pretty apparent up until recently Grumman had it in the bag.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 03:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: anzha

I have a feeling someone noticed something in the test data and threw up a red flag.


Do you mean that there was something that was:

1) Clearly outside of required performance specification
2) Data sets which contradicted each other and thus one of which was wrong
3) Something that a competing party noticed was outside scope, was 'unfair' and raised a hubis?

Must admit, I do feel sorry for the guys on the factory floor waiting for the outcome: not knowing something like this really puts lives on hold...



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 06:33 AM
link   
a reply to: aholic

The evidence was already pointing at them winning it, not NG. All the signs were that NG was moving on from the bomber into other programs and that LM/Boeing had it in the bag.
edit on 9/30/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join