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.

 

U.S. Air Force Said Poised to Award Bomber Contract Tuesday

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

You and me both buddy!




posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Wow, so they're saying that the industrial base was never considered to be as a factor, in the selection process - Are you kidding me, Uncle Sam??

Oh yeah, and no aircraft designation yet at this time (dumb question asked, if you ask me), and $564m per plane, assuming 100 planes, in 2016 dollars.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: aholic

It was underwhelming. I wish they would have shown something more.

But, alas, poor yorick...



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: weavty1

Industrial bases had a HUGE part in it despite what the pentaweenies say. How the heck could it not?



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

Well I know that, it's just the fact that they can blatantly lie about something that obvious, and not even bat an eye.
Really goes to show their logic and concern with 'what the public might think'.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: weavty1

The inevitable protest will probably cite the industrial base consideration as a flaw in the award, as a selection criteria that wasn't listed as an evaluation factor.

You better believe that will be on the lawyer list of things to look for in all the emails, records, etc. that will come via FOIA / protest. It seems the RCO has things locked up and wouldn't let their folks on the CRB / SSA mention things like "industrial impact" since this is such a major project.

Now the long waiting game for protest, etc.

I wish someone would have asked when we get to see what we're spending all this money on!




posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: SonOfThor

Couldn't agree with you more on those two points.
The brit at the end, could've at least asked that, knowing he was the last question - What a tard.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: weavty1

Industrial bases had a HUGE part in it despite what the pentaweenies say. How the heck could it not?


yeah that was a laugher......do you think they were trying to close the lid on potential protests even though it wasn't even a criteria? SMH...



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: weavty1

The inevitable protest will probably cite the industrial base consideration as a flaw in the award, as a selection criteria that wasn't listed as an evaluation factor.

You better believe that will be on the lawyer list of things to look for in all the emails, records, etc. that will come via FOIA / protest. It seems the RCO has things locked up and wouldn't let their folks on the CRB / SSA mention things like "industrial impact" since this is such a major project.

Now the long waiting game for protest, etc.

I wish someone would have asked when we get to see what we're spending all this money on!






posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: howmuch4another

I think they have a pretty strong defense. The NG bird is in fact more capable. How many times did they say "Anti-Access, Area Denial" in that conference... as if to rub it in. The NG bird is an A2/AD monster designed specifically for the Pacific, but with the EOTS of an F-35 for close air support in the ME and neural networking capabilities that make AEGIS show its age. So what if LockMart's went faster? It doesn't make it a better airplane for today's Air Force.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: aholic

So, speaking of capabilities, what does this decision mean in terms of the B-1R? I can see there being an opening for Boeing to keep the Wichita warm upgrading 20-30 of the bones to the B-1R spec, just so the USAF can keep a speedy striker for the rare missions where it's necessary.

Also, by sticking to the B-1R designation, rather than a whole new one, they can avoid all of the political messiness of a new procurement by saying that the complete teardown/rebuilding of the bones into what is really a completely new aircraft is just a "mid-life upgrade to the -R spec".



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

I don't see the B-1R happening, sorry. I love the idea too. What I do see happening is a push for super-sonic stealth cruise missiles to fill that gap, launched from a B-3 if in contested airspace. Something that is actually apart of the LRS family, which will be developed in tandem with the B-3.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: aholic
a reply to: howmuch4another

The NG bird is an A2/AD monster designed specifically for the Pacific, but with the EOTS of an F-35 for close air support in the ME and neural networking capabilities that make AEGIS show its age.


these kinds of descriptors get me going. you might as well whisper in my ear and turn down the lights.....they have the same effect.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: aholic

There is the Long Range Stand-off weapon and the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (aka missiles) they are working on: one stealthy and the other crazy fast.

Here's Sweetman's take (free with registration) on why NorthGrum won.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: howmuch4another

I think they are trying to tie up any loose ends that can be used against them if a protest is filed.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

Stupidest part of the whole thing: they wouldn't even call it the B-3, even though there's not exactly a lot of bombers between the B-2 the and LRS-B.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Not really. Politics and anti-consolidation mentality at its finest.
edit on 10/27/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

There you are. Did we see you when they panned the 'crowd?'


I figured that was going to play a HUGE bit in there. I suspect there will be a black project for the losers so they won't protest.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

No, I couldn't get it to load where I could listen in on it.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

heh. uh huh. we'd get a feedback loop then. The gig would be up then. ;P



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join