More LRS-B speculation

Something strange this New Mexico crash surely something black. For sure Lockheed know how making stealth aircraft and surely something great will go out of the Palmdale hangar with the LRS-B program if they win.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
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.

Is it widely known what happened to the NG plane, or speculation? Human error, or design flaw?
Sammamishman has quite a few valid points, and #4 is the reality.

a reply to: peter_kandra

Widely, no. There are two different stories I've heard, both of which had the same end result.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I have fairly intimate familiarity with the 23, which is why I'm curious as to what you may have heard..

a reply to: EBJet

Since you say you were familiar with the project, do you know if the YF-23 evolved into something else?

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: EBJet

Since you say you were familiar with the project, do you know if the YF-23 evolved into something else?

Straight to the point, nice :-)

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: peter_kandra

Widely, no. There are two different stories I've heard, both of which had the same end result.

Thanks. I recently read B-2: The Spirit of Innovation recently, and NG's development process for it was absolutely amazing, especially considering the limited computing power of the time. I'm sure the LRS-B utilized all the latest and greatest in both CAD modeling technologies as well as adaptive manufacturing.

a reply to: Sammamishman
Green is nice.......But thats my opinion..

a reply to: Blackfinger

Green is more of a Lockheed color though I believe.

a reply to: Sammamishman

First why would those not suffice as speculative material? And most people here have pretty clear ideas what both frames look like. It doesn't take much research.

I know people at both Boeing and Northrop, and from what I've been told and/or heard, Northrop's bomber is not only more affordable but more capable.

There are a lot of folks in high places pushing for a two prime market.

And exactly, all new platforms have developmental issues. We could continue to name a dozen more exotic aircraft that have had catastrophic and even fatal failures. Doesn't mean those issues never get worked out and they don't turn out to be extremely viable systems. And from what I've heard NG's little issue wasn't fatal nor catastrophic, the thing is still flying today!

This is my own opinion, but the company has been able to foresee the way battle is conducted years ahead with great accuracy. More so than the other firms. They make a point of building systems that go above and beyond the capabilities we feel we think we need now. Just look at the widow....

a reply to: aholic

And not to continue to tout my love for Grumman, as is probably exccedingly apparent at this point. They also just make better looking aircraft. A major part of me wishes their JSF proposal made it off paper. But again, my wishful opinion.

Watching Broken Arrow and just wondering how close Johnny Woo got to the B3 in it..

a reply to: aholic

I'm wondering how high up the folks you know are. It sounds like your opinions may be based on source selection sensitive data; which surprises me given the classified compartmentalization of this procurement. I'm not saying I don't believe you but I wonder how many folks who aren't on the TEP or the SSA panels actually have the information to determine a) which bird is technically better b)which proposal is cheaper and c)what the birds actually look like.

ETA: If there is a protest you better believe the lawyers will be combing all these online forums to track down if source selection info was leaked, etc. If someone has opinions that are based on actual insider knowledge that is procurement sensitive (and classified in this case) that help sustain a protest. I've seen protests sustained on much lower dollar contract due to source selection info being spoken about nonchalantly by a program manager.

a reply to: Sammamishman

No can do..

a reply to: aholic

Nobody can predict how future wars are going to be fought. In the 90s how many people thought that future wars would be nonconventional, low intensity SOF-centric conflicts?

Sure, future wars are going to be high tech. Anyone can "forsee" a very broad assertion like that that. But predicting exactly how they will be fought and what platforms will/will not be useful is not possible (not to mention against who they will be fought).

Even if a private company could do that, the military and Capitol Hill are too big and risk averse to lead turn something like that effectively.

a reply to: justwanttofly

I'm sorry but that's exactly what these folks get paid to do. And in such they don't exactly predict how wars are fought but more dictate how wars are fought.

Looking back, even in the most recent 20 years of history, Northrop has had it right - even on their proposals that lost.

a reply to: SonOfThor

The folks I know have intimate experience with the electronics on board. Northrop leads the way in stealth, EW, ECM and radar. And always have as a matter of fact. So much so that no matter which company wins the airframe, NG will build in innards.

originally posted by: aholic
a reply to: SonOfThor

So much so that no matter which company wins the airframe, NG will build in innards.

Very curious about the above: what is the pentagon actually awarding? Does it award a winning plane and say to the company who designed it "OK, You build us this, exactly as you have submitted but with the requisite improvements and capability guarantees, using the people indicated". Or doe sit say "OK, we like your airframe design, project management and assembly skill, but we really like the other guys avionics: you need to use them, even if it means working out some deal"

Can it work like that?

originally posted by: Borys

originally posted by: aholic
a reply to: SonOfThor

So much so that no matter which company wins the airframe, NG will build in innards.

Very curious about the above: what is the pentagon actually awarding? Does it award a winning plane and say to the company who designed it "OK, You build us this, exactly as you have submitted but with the requisite improvements and capability guarantees, using the people indicated". Or doe sit say "OK, we like your airframe design, project management and assembly skill, but we really like the other guys avionics: you need to use them, even if it means working out some deal"

Can it work like that?

I couldn't imagine a worse decision, from a contracting perspective, every delay and cost increase is due to the customer enforced subcontractors.

So all of a sudden either my risk cost increases or my liabilities decrease.

Nice thought, but I don't see it as a viable solution to the offers.

But what do I know

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.

Couldnt agree more