More LRS-B speculation

Some insight into the announcement time line and the program in general.

Lt. Gen. Bunch: "..my hope is within the next couple months...". He didn't sound too confident in that statement either.

Nice discretion of how and why different contracts are structured, including LRSB ans KC-46's:

a reply to: Zaphod58

And we have a CR, folks.

a reply to: anzha

And Boeing goes wild.

Not that it matters as Obama is threatening to the defense bill.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Not entirely, Zaphod58. Even though Grumman had some big issues during the competition they do have the better bird. We know this already.

What's to be shown is how they are going to present it so that LM / BA wins. Reminds me of 1991.

These protests can kill a project you know....

a reply to: aholic

Yeah and those big issues already pointed to Boeing/LM winning. Issues like that can kill a bid.

originally posted by: Sammamishman
Some insight into the announcement time line and the program in general.

Lt. Gen. Bunch: "..my hope is within the next couple months...". He didn't sound too confident in that statement either.

We've got to get the start right...does that mean protests would prevent the winner and the Air Force signing?

a reply to: Zaphod58

A raptor crashed during trials and that didn't seem to be a mark against LM.

a reply to: Forensick

I think a protest is exactly what they are trying to avoid. And legally that takes time to formulate especially when the loosing side has a better airplane.

I think, the point is, and then I'm off to bed, that we all know who the winner is and what the birds look like already. So the only reason for further delay is to avoid political controversy once the announcement is made. Basically we are watching them get their story straight. Which could not be more evident given the videos above and articles all over the Web.

I hope that something changes and Grumman wins because it's the bomber we need and the bomber we can afford. (Plus it looks better ) But unfortunately I know that higher powers want them gone despite the incredible hardware they produce.

Just take a guess with an new prez and BA and LM running the show how dismal US Air Force contracts will be. Read KC46, F35, F22...etc Are the really picking the most expensive contact again!!?

a reply to: aholic

AFTER LM had already been declared the winner. Not during the competition phase. And there's a hell of a difference between "the pilot didn't run the full checklist after a power interruption" and what happened to NG.

This is a good point I found here..www.spacewar.com...

It states security issues might hasten the contract.

a reply to: aholic

Yes of course, let's go with the cheaper aircraft that looks prettier despite the obvious developmental problems it has had. Cheaper is better.

a reply to: Zaphod58

THAT is what happend to the F-23 Black Widow isn't it?

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Not exactly no. There were no developmental problems during the competition phase during that contract. There were other issues.

originally posted by: aholic
I think, the point is, and then I'm off to bed, that we all know who the winner is and what the birds look like already. So the only reason for further delay is to avoid political controversy once the announcement is made. Basically we are watching them get their story straight. Which could not be more evident given the videos above and articles all over the Web.

I hope that something changes and Grumman wins because it's the bomber we need and the bomber we can afford. (Plus it looks better

) But unfortunately I know that higher powers want them gone despite the incredible hardware they produce.

1. How do you know what the aircraft look like? Have you seen them? And please don't bring up Wichita, Amarillo or NG's hype commercial as source material.

2. How are you so certain that NG's bomber is better than LM's? Last time I checked, the only specs we have on the aircraft are what was required of them through the RFP and what the AF has been slowly releasing since then. Both aircraft have to meet the RFP and have the capabilities the AF have released in order to even have a competition in the first place.

3. Why would you think higher powers (I can only assume you mean congress and or Pentagon) would want NG gone. In fact, if anything, they would want the opposite. They have just as many lobbyists and congressman/senators as the next aerospace company, that want to see tax payer money filtered through their districts. Loosing NG would also make it harder for the DoD to write contracts with the lack of suitable competition in that sector. It would cost this country and the ones benefiting from under the table funds from said contracts, even more.

4. To comment on a previous reply: RQ-4 lost three prototype aircraft during development of that program, we still bought and fly them. The very first F-14 crashed in 1970, yet the navy still bought those. RQ-180 has had issues and a crash during development (supposedly), the AF is still developing them. Turning back the clock a bit, the YB-49 crash in 1948, they still pushed on with development of that aircraft till it's cancellation. I could go on but the point is, things crash during development, that's why its called development. Happens to NG as much as it does LM and the DoD still buys products from both companies.

a reply to: Sammamishman

4. The New Mexico crash a couple of years ago right?

deepbluehorizon.blogspot.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

What would those "other issues" be, re: the YF-23? I can't think of any off the top of my head relating to the aircraft..

a reply to: EBJet

Things were found about the YF-23, and decisions were made that I'm not gonna get into on an open message board. Whether those decisions went anywhere is another story.

a reply to: BlackDog10

That's what I've read somewhere on the net IIRC.